On Oct 23, 5:10 am, cr...@postnewspapers.com.au (Craig Ringer) wrote:
> semi-ambivalent wrote:
> > At first blush that looks good but I need an index on that concatted
> > value and I don't seem to be able to index a field in a view. I'll
> > check the docs on views to see if I'm missing something.
>
> As others have noted, a multi-field index or a functional index is
> probably the best option.
>
> If you decide for some reason that you really, really need the
> concatenated fields stored in the table its self, you will need to use a
> BEFORE INSERT ... FOR EACH ROW trigger to populate field `D'.
>
> --
> Craig Ringer
>
> --
> Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-gene...@postgresql.org)
> To make changes to your subscription:http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general
Thanks everyone for the pointers. I like the idea of getting rid of
the concatenated field even though it reduced the worst case query
time to one tenth of what I had been seeing. But for now I'm going to
keep it there because I'm ignorant about triggers so this will be a
good opportunity to learn about them before I drop the column for
something more efficient, assuming there is.
sa
