Re: Unique indexes not unique?
От | Jimmy Mäkelä |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Unique indexes not unique? |
Дата | |
Msg-id | D1045567F50DD311AB1B00508B3188E9026546D9@RINGHALS обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Unique indexes not unique? (Jimmy Mäkelä <jimmy.makela@agent25.se>) |
Список | pgsql-sql |
From: Tomasz Myrta [mailto:jasiek@klaster.net] > I'm not sure unique index works properly for null values. I can't > explain, why. Maybe it comes from SQL standard - null i a > special value Yeah, I thought about that too, but I think that behaviour is really bad and would consider it a bug. There are good reasons for having a special SQL null, but none of these apply to unique indexes (not that I can think of anyway). > Try to rewrite your query to show postgres how to use index on AB: > SELECT * FROM "table" > WHERE > (a = 1 AND b > 1232132 AND b < 123123123213123) or > (a = 2 AND b > 1232132 AND b < 123123123213123) or > (a = 3 AND b > 1232132 AND b < 123123123213123); Sure, this works, and is an improvement to the UNION-version, but I think postgres should be able do these substitutions by itself in the planner/optimizer... Or is there any method for specifying optimizer hints? Regards, Jimmy
В списке pgsql-sql по дате отправления: