Scott Marlowe wrote:
>
> I don't see the issue here. The index being used is the same partial
> index you created. Maybe it's just a question of semantics?
>
As I understand final filter is:
a) pointed at the index creation
b) is redundant as all the indexed records have action
On 8/22/07, Aleksandr Vinokurov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> create table user_history (
>rec_id SERIAL not null,
>date TIMESTAMPnot null,
>action INT2 not null,
>uid INT4 not
Thank you Tom,
but does it means that this is only an explain's problem or the plan
is actually such a hard, and postmaster actually checks each record
found by the index with this "filter"?
I'm using 8.0.1 version, but upgrading can become a work with expense.
On 22/08/07, Tom Lane <[EMAIL PROT
"Aleksandr Vinokurov" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> The question is why "explain analyze" shows a 'Filter: ("action" <> 0)' in
> plan:
Use a newer Postgres release (8.1 or later).
regards, tom lane
---(end of broadcast)---
Hello all,
Imagine having this table:
create table user_history (
rec_id SERIAL not null,
date TIMESTAMPnot null,
action INT2 not null,
uid INT4 not null,
name C
