"Kevin Grittner" <kevin.gritt...@wicourts.gov> writes:
> Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
>> I think what Robert is complaining about is that we won't
>> currently consider an index that matches neither any WHERE clauses
>> nor ORDER BY, ie, count(*) over the whole table won't get
>> considered for an index-only scan, regardless of cost estimates.
> I guess the trick would be to get it to consider such plans only
> under some conditions, to avoid explosive growth in planning time
> for some types of queries. Some statistics bucket for the number of
> non-frozen tuples in the relation, maybe?
My intention was to allow it to consider any covering index. You're
thinking about the cost estimate, which is really entirely different.
regards, tom lane
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
