Thread: A fairly obvious optimization?
Considering this schema:
-- Table: cnx_ds_sis_bill_detl_tb
CREATE TABLE "cnx_ds_sis_bill_detl_tb" ( "extr_stu_id" char(10), "term_cyt" char(5), "subcode" char(5), "tran_seq"
int2, "crc" int8, CONSTRAINT "pk_cnx_ds_sis_bill_detl_tb" UNIQUE ("extr_stu_id",
"term_cyt", "subcode", "tran_seq")
);
-- Index: pk_cnx_ds_sis_bill_detl_tb
CREATE UNIQUE INDEX pk_cnx_ds_sis_bill_detl_tb ON
cnx_ds_sis_bill_detl_tb USING btree (extr_stu_id bpchar_ops, term_cyt
bpchar_ops, subcode bpchar_ops, tran_seq int2_ops);
Here is a PSQL session, where I did some simple queries:
connxdatasync=# select count(*) from cnx_ds_sis_bill_detl_tb; count
---------1607823
(1 row)
connxdatasync=# select min(extr_stu_id) from cnx_ds_sis_bill_detl_tb; min
------------ 000251681
(1 row)
connxdatasync=# select max(extr_stu_id) from cnx_ds_sis_bill_detl_tb; max
------------ 999999999
(1 row)
The select(min) and select(max) took as long as the table scan to find
the count. It seems logical if a btree type index is available (such
as pk_cnx_ds_sis_bill_detl_tb) where the most significant bit of the
index is the column requested, it should be little more than a seek
first or seek last in the btree. Obviously, it won't work with a hashed
index (which is neither here nor there).
> The select(min) and select(max) took as long as the table scan to find > the count. It seems logical if a btree type index is available (such > as pk_cnx_ds_sis_bill_detl_tb) where the most significant bit of the > index is the column requested, it should be little more than a seek > first or seek last in the btree. Obviously, it won't work with a hashed > index (which is neither here nor there). In the meantime you can use: select extr_stu_id from cnx_ds_sis_bill_detl_tb order by 1 desc limit 1; -- max select extr_stu_id from cnx_ds_sis_bill_detl_tb order by 1 asc limit 1; -- min I guess that is the reason why nobody felt really motivated to implement this optimization. Besides these statements are more powerful, since they can fetch other columns from this min/max row. The down side is, that this syntax varies across db vendors, but most (all?) have a corresponding feature nowadays. select first 1 select top 1 ... This is actually becoming a FAQ :-) Andreas
On Wed, 2002-05-15 at 23:23, Dann Corbit wrote: > The select(min) and select(max) took as long as the table scan to find > the count. It seems logical if a btree type index is available (such > as pk_cnx_ds_sis_bill_detl_tb) where the most significant bit of the > index is the column requested, it should be little more than a seek > first or seek last in the btree. Obviously, it won't work with a hashed > index (which is neither here nor there). The problem is postgres' extensibility -there is no hard-wired connection between max() and b-tree indexes - you can define an aggregate max() that returns something completely diffrent, say the longest string length or the "best" optimisation techniqe which may or may not be able to use an index. ------------ Hannu
FAQ updated in section 4.8: My queries are slow or don't make use of the indexes. Why? is returned. In fact, though MAX() and MIN() don't use indexes, it is possible to retrieve such values using anindex with ORDER BY and LIMIT: <PRE> SELECT col FROM tab ORDER BY col LIMIT 1 </PRE> --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Zeugswetter Andreas SB SD wrote: > > > The select(min) and select(max) took as long as the table scan to find > > the count. It seems logical if a btree type index is available (such > > as pk_cnx_ds_sis_bill_detl_tb) where the most significant bit of the > > index is the column requested, it should be little more than a seek > > first or seek last in the btree. Obviously, it won't work with a hashed > > index (which is neither here nor there). > > In the meantime you can use: > select extr_stu_id from cnx_ds_sis_bill_detl_tb order by 1 desc limit 1; -- max > select extr_stu_id from cnx_ds_sis_bill_detl_tb order by 1 asc limit 1; -- min > > I guess that is the reason why nobody felt really motivated to implement > this optimization. Besides these statements are more powerful, since they can fetch > other columns from this min/max row. The down side is, that this syntax varies across > db vendors, but most (all?) have a corresponding feature nowadays. > > select first 1 > select top 1 ... > > This is actually becoming a FAQ :-) > > Andreas > > ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- > TIP 5: Have you checked our extensive FAQ? > > http://www.postgresql.org/users-lounge/docs/faq.html > -- Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us pgman@candle.pha.pa.us | (610) 853-3000+ If your life is a hard drive, | 830 Blythe Avenue + Christ can be your backup. | Drexel Hill, Pennsylvania19026
On Sun, 23 Jun 2002 17:16:09 EDT, the world broke into rejoicing as Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us> said: > FAQ updated in section 4.8: My queries are slow or don't make use of the > indexes. Why? > > is returned. In fact, though MAX() and MIN() don't use indexes, > it is possible to retrieve such values using an index with ORDER BY > and LIMIT: > <PRE> > SELECT col > FROM tab > ORDER BY col > LIMIT 1 > </PRE> This sounds like the sort of thing that would be really nice to be able to automate into the query optimizer... -- (reverse (concatenate 'string "moc.enworbbc@" "sirhc")) http://www3.sympatico.ca/cbbrowne/spreadsheets.html "I decry the current tendency to seek patents on algorithms. There are better ways to earn a living than to prevent other people from making use of one's contributions to computer science." -- D. E. Knuth