Received: from localhost (postgresql.org [64.49.215.8])
	by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3BC9E4758FB
	for <pgsql-novice@postgresql.org>; Fri,  2 Aug 2002 14:20:34 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from lakemtao07.cox.net (lakemtao07.cox.net [68.1.17.114])
	by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A9F2A4758F3
	for <pgsql-novice@postgresql.org>; Fri,  2 Aug 2002 14:20:33 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from loki ([68.102.33.38]) by lakemtao07.cox.net
	(InterMail vM.5.01.04.05 201-253-122-122-105-20011231) with SMTP
	id <20020802182034.GDRF12120.lakemtao07.cox.net@loki>
	for <pgsql-novice@postgresql.org>; Fri, 2 Aug 2002 14:20:34 -0400
From: "Adam Erickson" <adamre@cox.net>
To: <pgsql-novice@postgresql.org>
Subject: Aggregates and Indexes
Date: Fri, 2 Aug 2002 13:20:34 -0500
Message-ID: <ALEKKHACBIAEBNBPFKPCCEFHEDAA.adamre@cox.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Priority: 3 (Normal)
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2911.0)
Importance: Normal
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000
In-Reply-To: <E2870D8CE1CCD311BAF50008C71EDE8E01F7494F@MAIL_EXCHANGE>
X-Virus-Scanned: by AMaViS new-20020517
X-Archive-Number: 200208/18
X-Sequence-Number: 4450

Their has been some discussion regarding aggregate functions and indexes.
It's clear that aggregate functions will not take advantage of any indexes.
(ie. SELECT sum(number) FROM table WHERE type=BLAH will not take advantage
of 'type' being indexed.)

I do a lot of reporting based on such SQL statements.  Counting rows from
large datasets.  Since the PG gurus don't seem to think this is such a big
deal can someone enlighten me as to why?

Thanks,
Adam Erickson