Re: select max(column) not using index

From: Hannu Krosing <hannu(at)tm(dot)ee>
To: Thomas Zehetbauer <thomasz(at)hostmaster(dot)org>
Cc: pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: select max(column) not using index
Date: 2002-03-13 16:14:49
Message-ID: 1016036094.30674.8.camel@taru.tm.ee
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Thu, 2002-03-07 at 18:04, Thomas Zehetbauer wrote:
> I think you all should really buy the book 'Database Development for Dummies'.
> Postgresql is for sure the only database on this planet that cannot optimize a
> select(max) using an index.

PostgreSQL is extensible enough that luser can define max() to mean
anything and thus you don't have a general way to optimise it without
breaking some cases.

If you know that max(x) means the biggest x there is and you have a
b-tree index on x you can use:

select x from t order by x desc limit 1;

> Not even Microsoft has implemented such a design deficiency yet and

It would be a very microsofty way to optimise in ways that sometimes
produce wrong results ;)

> even MySQL which you like to talk so bad about uses an
> index to optimize select max() queries.

What do you need the superfast max() for ?

If you are trying to re-implement sequences you may yet find some
surprises.

> Some of you should really consider
> attending a programming course and all of you should consider to stop working
> on this totally screwed up monster!

Did you make yourself look bad by assuming that postgreSQL _does_ your
suggested optimisation ?

> Nirvana: Zustand des Gluecks durch Ausloeschung des Selbst.

How is this related to above ??

-------------
Hannu

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Darren King 2002-03-13 16:15:11 Re: select max(column) not using index
Previous Message Luis Alberto Amigo Navarro 2002-03-13 16:10:26 Re: bad performance on irix