Also, the multikey index of (assetid, ts) would already be sorted and
that is why using such an index in this case is
faster than doing a sequential scan that does the sorting afterwards.
Graham.
Chris Browne wrote:
>gdavis@refractions.net (Graham Davis) writes:
>
>
>>Adding DESC to both columns in the SORT BY did not make the query use
>>the multikey index. So both
>>
>>SELECT DISTINCT ON (assetid) assetid, ts
>>FROM asset_positions ORDER BY assetid, ts DESC;
>>
>>and
>>
>>SELECT DISTINCT ON (assetid) assetid, ts
>>FROM asset_positions ORDER BY assetid DESC, ts DESC;
>>
>>use the same query plans and both do sequential scans without using
>>either the (assetid, ts) or (ts) indexes. Any other ideas on how to
>>make this query use an index? Thanks,
>>
>>
>
>Why do you want to worsen performance by forcing the use of an index?
>
>You are reading through the entire table, after all, and doing so via
>a sequential scan is normally the fastest way to do that. An index
>scan would only be more efficient if you don't have enough space in
>memory to store all assetid values.
>
>
--
Graham Davis
Refractions Research Inc.
gdavis@refractions.net
