Re: WIP: Covering + unique indexes. - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From David Rowley
Subject Re: WIP: Covering + unique indexes.
Date
Msg-id CAKJS1f_GYoJsYLJyK_92_v38x8LO5Nk+4w8=E2yqLDbTyPS7ug@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: WIP: Covering + unique indexes.  (David Rowley <david.rowley@2ndquadrant.com>)
Responses Re: WIP: Covering + unique indexes.
List pgsql-hackers
On 4 January 2016 at 21:49, David Rowley <david.rowley@2ndquadrant.com> wrote:
I've not tested the patch yet. I will send another email soon with the results of that.

Hi,

As promised I've done some testing on this, and I've found something which is not quite right:

create table ab (a int,b int);
insert into ab select x,y from generate_series(1,20) x(x), generate_series(10,1,-1) y(y);
create index on ab (a) including (b);
explain select * from ab order by a,b;
                        QUERY PLAN                        
----------------------------------------------------------
 Sort  (cost=10.64..11.14 rows=200 width=8)
   Sort Key: a, b
   ->  Seq Scan on ab  (cost=0.00..3.00 rows=200 width=8)
(3 rows)

This is what I'd expect

truncate table ab;
insert into ab select x,y from generate_series(1,20) x(x), generate_series(10,1,-1) y(y);
explain select * from ab order by a,b;
                                  QUERY PLAN                                  
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Index Only Scan using ab_a_b_idx on ab  (cost=0.15..66.87 rows=2260 width=8)
(1 row)

This index, as we've defined it should not be able to satisfy the query's order by, although it does give correct results, that's because the index seems to be built wrongly in cases where the rows are added after the index exists.

If we then do:

reindex table ab;
explain select * from ab order by a,b;
                        QUERY PLAN                        
----------------------------------------------------------
 Sort  (cost=10.64..11.14 rows=200 width=8)
   Sort Key: a, b
   ->  Seq Scan on ab  (cost=0.00..3.00 rows=200 width=8)
(3 rows)

It looks normal again.

-- 
 David Rowley                   http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
 PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services

pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Noah Misch
Date:
Subject: Re: Additional role attributes && superuser review
Next
From: Amit Langote
Date:
Subject: Regression caused by recent change to initdb?