X-Original-To: pgsql-performance-postgresql.org@postgresql.org
Received: from localhost (mx1.hub.org [200.46.208.251])
	by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 873CF9FA5BE
	for <pgsql-performance-postgresql.org@postgresql.org>;
	Thu, 15 Jun 2006 16:38:43 -0300 (ADT)
Received: from postgresql.org ([200.46.204.71])
	by localhost (mx1.hub.org [200.46.208.251]) (amavisd-new, port 10024)
	with ESMTP id 41812-07 for
	<pgsql-performance-postgresql.org@postgresql.org>;
	Thu, 15 Jun 2006 16:38:34 -0300 (ADT)
X-Greylist: domain auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-
Received: from ug-out-1314.google.com (ug-out-1314.google.com [66.249.92.170])
	by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2EE709FA13E
	for <pgsql-performance@postgresql.org>;
	Thu, 15 Jun 2006 16:38:33 -0300 (ADT)
Received: by ug-out-1314.google.com with SMTP id a2so380627ugf
	for <pgsql-performance@postgresql.org>;
	Thu, 15 Jun 2006 12:38:32 -0700 (PDT)
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=beta; d=gmail.com;
	h=received:message-id:date:from:to:subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:references;
	b=m+7mjzwABh/RRuPWFNAWM/Xw7XxhvD+ay/MOkSXYZPPoKA/EnwLpvS/s3djGYRJAZnQ5tX1WRnlvfkiI8QkWkv4QIl+3g5eR/2qvgdoBnzQs41pliPgdI8ZkSUXIuaxKeBqQ6FZsmK6hrjLMGy0vVL21zv4MFMufycgAWcnjlz0=
Received: by 10.67.100.17 with SMTP id c17mr796532ugm;
	Thu, 15 Jun 2006 12:38:32 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.66.216.11 with HTTP; Thu, 15 Jun 2006 12:38:32 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <c841561b0606151238m333ca5cdgccd066b980a29aac@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 15 Jun 2006 15:38:32 -0400
From: "John Vincent" <lusis.org@gmail.com>
To: "Mark Lewis" <mark.lewis@mir3.com>
Subject: Re: Optimizer internals
Cc: "PGSQL Performance" <pgsql-performance@postgresql.org>
In-Reply-To: <c841561b0606151221v219987aap376194583dd30940@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
	boundary="----=_Part_10235_27566945.1150400312377"
References: <c841561b0606151105v459d830era158b9eea5f59a7e@mail.gmail.com>
	<1150396425.31200.66.camel@archimedes>
	<c841561b0606151146j5f8410f2qaeaff7649b70cd20@mail.gmail.com>
	<1150398064.31200.76.camel@archimedes>
	<c841561b0606151221v219987aap376194583dd30940@mail.gmail.com>
X-Virus-Scanned: Maia Mailguard 1.0.1
X-Archive-Number: 200606/432
X-Sequence-Number: 19789

------=_Part_10235_27566945.1150400312377
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline

Any suggestions? FYI the original question wasn't meant as a poke at
> comparing PG to MySQL to DB2. I'm not making an yvalue judgements either
> way. I'm just trying to understand how we can use it the best way possible.
>

Actually we just thought about something. With PG, we can create an index
that is a SUM of the column where indexing, no? We're going to test this in
a few hours. Would that be able to be satisfied by an index scan?

------=_Part_10235_27566945.1150400312377
Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline

<br><br><div><span class="gmail_quote"></span><br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;"><div>Any suggestions? FYI the original question wasn't meant as a poke at comparing PG to MySQL to DB2. I'm not making an yvalue judgements either way. I'm just trying to understand how we can use it the best way possible.
</div></blockquote><div><br>Actually we just thought about something. With PG, we can create an index that is a SUM of the column where indexing, no? We're going to test this in a few hours. Would that be able to be satisfied by an index scan?
<br></div><br></div><br>

------=_Part_10235_27566945.1150400312377--