Re: index usage
От | Timur Irmatov |
---|---|
Тема | Re: index usage |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 87109443711.20030117200814@sarkor.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: index usage (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>) |
Ответы |
Re: index usage
|
Список | pgsql-performance |
TL> Timur Irmatov <thor@sarkor.com> writes: >> Limit (cost=0.00..0.19 rows=1 width=6) (actual time=0.43..0.43 rows=0 loops=1) >> -> Index Scan using timeindex on mediumstats (cost=0.00..2898.96 rows=15185 width=6) (actual time=0.42..0.42 rows=0loops=1) TL> The planner has absolutely no clue about the behavior of your function, TL> and so its estimate of the number of rows matched is way off, leading to TL> a poor estimate of the cost of an indexscan. There is not much to be TL> done about this in the current system (though I've speculated about the TL> possibility of computing statistics for functional indexes). you're absolutely right. thanks. TL> Just out of curiosity, why don't you lose all this year/month/day stuff TL> and use a timestamp column? Less space, more functionality. :-) Well, I've a seen a lot of people on pgsql-general mailing list with problems with dates, timestamps, and I was just scared of using PostreSQL date and time types and functions.. May be, I should just try it myself before doing it other way...
В списке pgsql-performance по дате отправления: