Thread: LIKE should use index when condition doesn't include wildcard
Hi,
Shouldn't the optimizer use indices if the like condition does not have any
wildcards?
An example:
girgen=# explain analyze select * from person where userid = 'girgen';
QUERY PLAN
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------
Index Scan using person_pkey on person (cost=0.00..5.98 rows=1 width=84)
(actual time=0.034..0.039 rows=1 loops=1)
Index Cond: (userid = 'girgen'::text)
Total runtime: 0.091 ms
(3 rader)
girgen=# explain analyze select * from person where userid like 'girgen';
QUERY PLAN
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------
Seq Scan on person (cost=0.00..77.08 rows=1 width=84) (actual
time=1.137..1.143 rows=1 loops=1)
Filter: (userid ~~ 'girgen'::text)
Total runtime: 1.193 ms
(3 rader)
The result cannot be different between the two cases. The second query does
not use the index since database is initiaized with a locale,
sv_SE.ISO8859-1, and I need it for correct sorting. (Still dreaming about
indices with like and locale)... But, since there is no wildcard in the
string 'girgen', it should easily be able to use the index, if it only
bothered to note that there is a wildcard around, right?
Another thing on the same subject:
I use an app that builds searches using some standard method, and it wants
to always search case-insensitive. Hence, it uses ILIKE instead of `=',
even for joins, and even for integers. This is a bit lazy, indeed, and also
wrong. While this is wrong, no doubt, the odd thing I realized was that
the optimizer didn't make use of the indices. Same thing here, the
optimizer should ideally know that it is dealing with integers, where ILIKE
and LIKE has no meaning, and it should use `=' instead implicitally, hence
using indices. This one might be kind of low priority, but the one above
really isn't, IMO.
/Palle
Palle Girgensohn <girgen@pingpong.net> writes:
> Shouldn't the optimizer use indices if the like condition does not have any
> wildcards?
I can't get excited about this; if you are depending on LIKE to be fast
then you should have locale-insensitive indexes in place to support it.
Switching the tests around so that this special case is supported even
with an index that doesn't otherwise support LIKE would complicate the
code unduly IMHO, to support a rather pointless corner case...
regards, tom lane
--On tisdag, mars 30, 2004 19.16.44 -0500 Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
wrote:
> Palle Girgensohn <girgen@pingpong.net> writes:
>> Shouldn't the optimizer use indices if the like condition does not have
>> any wildcards?
>
> I can't get excited about this; if you are depending on LIKE to be fast
> then you should have locale-insensitive indexes in place to support it.
> Switching the tests around so that this special case is supported even
> with an index that doesn't otherwise support LIKE would complicate the
> code unduly IMHO, to support a rather pointless corner case...
OK, I agree. Sad, though, that throw away ability to use order by is the
only way to get index scans using LIKE... :(
But what about ILIKE. It does not take advantage of indices built with
lower():
girgen=# create index person_foo on person (lower(last_name));
girgen=# vacuum analyze person;
girgen=# explain select * from person where lower(last_name) =
'girgensohn';
QUERY PLAN
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
--
Index Scan using person_foo on person (cost=0.00..137.58 rows=78 width=96)
Index Cond: (lower(last_name) = 'girgensohn'::text)
(2 rows)
girgen=# explain select * from person where last_name = 'Girgensohn';
QUERY PLAN
---------------------------------------------------------
Seq Scan on person (cost=0.00..441.35 rows=4 width=96)
Filter: (last_name = 'Girgensohn'::text)
(2 rows)
girgen=# explain select * from person where lower(last_name) like
'girgen%';
QUERY PLAN
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------
Index Scan using person_foo on person (cost=0.00..137.58 rows=78 width=96)
Index Cond: ((lower(last_name) >= 'girgen'::text) AND (lower(last_name)
< 'girgeo'::text))
Filter: (lower(last_name) ~~ 'girgen%'::text)
(3 rows)
girgen=# explain select * from person where last_name ilike 'girgen%';
QUERY PLAN
---------------------------------------------------------
Seq Scan on person (cost=0.00..441.35 rows=5 width=96)
Filter: (last_name ~~* 'girgen%'::text)
(2 rows)
postgresql 7.4.2, freebsd 4.9 stable.
/Palle
Palle, > But what about ILIKE. It does not take advantage of indices built with > lower(): Nope. If you want to use a functional index, you'll need to use the function when you call the query. ILIKE is not somehow aware that it is equivalent to lower(). -- -Josh Berkus Aglio Database Solutions San Francisco
--On tisdag, mars 30, 2004 16.56.09 -0800 Josh Berkus <josh@agliodbs.com> wrote: > Palle, > >> But what about ILIKE. It does not take advantage of indices built with >> lower(): > > Nope. If you want to use a functional index, you'll need to use the > function when you call the query. ILIKE is not somehow aware that it > is equivalent to lower(). Too bad... that was my idea, that it would somehow be aware that it is equivalent to lower() like. It really is, isn't it? I would have though they where synonymous. If not, makes ILIKE kind of unusable, at least unless you're pretty certain the field will never indexed. /Palle
Palle, > Too bad... that was my idea, that it would somehow be aware that it is > equivalent to lower() like. It really is, isn't it? I would have though > they where synonymous. If not, makes ILIKE kind of unusable, at least > unless you're pretty certain the field will never indexed. Yup. I use it mostly for lookups in reference lists with < 100 items, where an index doesn't matter. -- -Josh Berkus Aglio Database Solutions San Francisco
Josh Berkus <josh@agliodbs.com> writes:
> ILIKE is not somehow aware that it is equivalent to lower().
Is it? Given the wild and wonderful behaviors of locales here and
there, I wouldn't want to assume that such an equivalence holds.
In particular I note that iclike() seems to be multibyte-aware while
lower() definitely is not. Even if that's just a bug, it's a big leap
to assume that ILIKE is equivalent to LIKE on lower(). Think about
Turkish i/I, German esstet (did I spell that right?), ch in various
languages, etc etc.
regards, tom lane