From: Tomasz Myrta [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > 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 ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 6: Have you searched our list archives? http://archives.postgresql.org
