On Friday 09 January 2004 08:57, Dennis Björklund wrote:
> On Fri, 9 Jan 2004, Richard Huxton wrote:
> > > > select invheadref, invprodref, sum(units)
> > > > from invtran
> > > > group by invheadref, invprodref
> > >
> > > For the above query, shouldn't you have one index for both columns
> > > (invheadref, invprodref). Then it should not need to sort at all to do
> > > the grouping and it should all be fast.
> >
> > Not sure if that would make a difference here, since the whole table is
> > being read.
>
> The goal was to avoid the sorting which should not be needed with that
> index (I hope). So I still think that it would help in this case.
Sorry - not being clear. I can see how it _might_ help, but will the planner
take into account the fact that even though:
index-cost > seqscan-cost
that
(index-cost + no-sorting) < (seqscan-cost + sort-cost)
assuming of course, that the costs turn out that way.
--
Richard Huxton
Archonet Ltd
---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 3: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate
subscribe-nomail command to [EMAIL PROTECTED] so that your
message can get through to the mailing list cleanly
