On 11/7/14, 5:14 AM, Artūras Lapinskas wrote:
thanks for your time and answer. Not treating IS NULL as equality operator
definitely helps me to make more sense out of previous explains.
You can also try creating a partial index WHERE b IS NULL. WHERE b IS NOT NULL
can also sometimes be useful
Hi,
thanks for your time and answer. Not treating IS NULL as equality
operator definitely helps me to make more sense out of previous
explains.
--
Best Regard,
Artūras Lapinskas
On Thu, Nov 06, 2014 at 12:23:12PM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
=?utf-8?Q?Art=C5=ABras?= Lapinskas writes:
After some
=?utf-8?Q?Art=C5=ABras?= Lapinskas writes:
> After some more investigation my wild guess would be that then nulls are
> involved in query postgresql wants to double check whatever they are
> really nulls in actual relation (maybe because of dead tuples).
No, it's much simpler than that: IS NULL
After some more investigation my wild guess would be that then nulls are
involved in query postgresql wants to double check whatever they are
really nulls in actual relation (maybe because of dead tuples). To do
that it has to go and fetch pages from disk and the best way to do that
is to use b
Hello,
I am having some hard time understanding how postgresql handles null
values. As much I understand null values are stored in b-tree as simple
values (put as last or first depending on index). But it seems that
there is something really specific about them as postgresql deliberately
igno
Hello,
I am having some hard time understanding how postgresql handles null
values. As much I understand null values are stored in b-tree as simple
values (put as last or first depending on index). But it seems that
there is something really specific about them as postgresql deliberately
igno
