Greg Stark wrote: > On Mon, Oct 10, 2011 at 9:17 PM, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > > My intention was to allow it to consider any covering index. ?You're > > thinking about the cost estimate, which is really entirely different. > > > > Is there any reason to consider more than one? I would have expected > the narrowest one to be the best choice. There's something to be said > for using the same index consistently but we already have that problem > and make no attempt to do that. And partial indexes might be better > but then we would already be considering them if their constraints are > satisfied.
Actually, I think the smallest non-partial one on disk might be the best --- that is very easy to find out. -- Bruce Momjian <br...@momjian.us> http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com + It's impossible for everything to be true. + -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
