X-Original-To: pgsql-sql-postgresql.org@localhost.postgresql.org Received: from localhost (unknown [200.46.204.2]) by svr1.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 49B8CD1B53C for ; Wed, 15 Oct 2003 16:13:00 +0000 (GMT) Received: from svr1.postgresql.org ([200.46.204.71]) by localhost (neptune.hub.org [200.46.204.2]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 79166-04 for ; Wed, 15 Oct 2003 13:12:29 -0300 (ADT) Received: from news.hub.org (news.hub.org [200.46.204.72]) by svr1.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B84C0D1B524 for ; Wed, 15 Oct 2003 13:12:28 -0300 (ADT) Received: from news.hub.org (news.hub.org [200.46.204.72]) by news.hub.org (8.12.9/8.12.9) with ESMTP id h9FGCSNu087951 for ; Wed, 15 Oct 2003 16:12:28 GMT (envelope-from news@news.hub.org) Received: (from news@localhost) by news.hub.org (8.12.9/8.12.9/Submit) id h9FFuumD075101 for pgsql-sql@postgresql.org; Wed, 15 Oct 2003 15:56:56 GMT From: teknokrat X-Newsgroups: comp.databases.postgresql.sql Subject: indexing timestamp fields Date: Wed, 15 Oct 2003 16:56:56 +0100 Organization: Hub.Org Networking Services Lines: 5 Message-ID: Reply-To: teknokrat@yahoo.com Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Complaints-To: usenet@news.hub.org User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.0.0+) Gecko/20020518 X-Accept-Language: en, en-us, ko To: pgsql-sql@postgresql.org X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at postgresql.org X-Archive-Number: 200310/191 X-Sequence-Number: 15591 Is it a good idea to index timestamp fields? what about date fields in general? thanks