Re: [HACKERS] Use of Indicies ... - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From The Hermit Hacker
Subject Re: [HACKERS] Use of Indicies ...
Date
Msg-id Pine.BSF.4.21.0001240901590.79710-100000@thelab.hub.org
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: [HACKERS] Use of Indicies ...  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
List pgsql-hackers
On Mon, 24 Jan 2000, Tom Lane wrote:

> The Hermit Hacker <scrappy@hub.org> writes:
> > There is an index on all three conditions in the WHERE clause:
> > Yet EXPLAIN shows:
> > Aggregate  (cost=2.05 rows=1 width=4)
> -> Index Scan using referrer_link_counter_id on referrer_link  (cost=2.05 rows=1 width=4)
> 
> > Why does EXPLAIN only show the use of one of the indices, why counter_id
> > and why not all three?
> 
> Indexscans only know how to use one index at a time.
> 
> The optimizer picked the counter_id index out of the three available
> choices because it thought that would be the cheapest (most selective)
> alternative --- or, if the computed selectivities were all the same,
> just because it happened to try that one first.
> 
> Do you have reason to think that one of the other indexes would have
> been cheaper?

Nope, just looked weird that not all three were used, that's all
... someone else responded to me on this with a similar response
... basically, that it didn't make sense to use all three indices since it
there would be no 'index' on the result of the first condition ...

Ie. if 'counter_id = ?' returned 4 tuples out of 40000, why look at those
40000 again for 'referrer_url = ?', when you already know that only 4
match the first condition ...

Marc G. Fournier                   ICQ#7615664               IRC Nick: Scrappy
Systems Administrator @ hub.org 
primary: scrappy@hub.org           secondary: scrappy@{freebsd|postgresql}.org 



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: The Hermit Hacker
Date:
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Happy column dropping
Next
From: Tatsuo Ishii
Date:
Subject: PQputline failed