On Mon, Jan 24, 2005 at 09:24:49AM -0500, Greg Stark wrote:
> "Jim C. Nasby" <decibel@decibel.org> writes:
>
> > Well, every other database I've used can do index covering, which means
> > index scans *are* faster.
>
> Still not necessarily true. In a case like this it would still be random
> access which would be slower than sequential access.
Actually, even with random access, a covering index can still be faster.
Imagine a single-field index on a table with 40 fields.
--
Jim C. Nasby, Database Consultant decibel@decibel.org
Give your computer some brain candy! www.distributed.net Team #1828
Windows: "Where do you want to go today?"
Linux: "Where do you want to go tomorrow?"
FreeBSD: "Are you guys coming, or what?"
