On Oct 23, 5:10 am, cr...@postnewspapers.com.au (Craig Ringer) wrote: > semi-ambivalent wrote: > > At first blush that looks good but I need an index on that concatted > > value and I don't seem to be able to index a field in a view. I'll > > check the docs on views to see if I'm missing something. > > As others have noted, a multi-field index or a functional index is > probably the best option. > > If you decide for some reason that you really, really need the > concatenated fields stored in the table its self, you will need to use a > BEFORE INSERT ... FOR EACH ROW trigger to populate field `D'. > > -- > Craig Ringer > > -- > Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-gene...@postgresql.org) > To make changes to your > subscription:http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general
Thanks everyone for the pointers. I like the idea of getting rid of the concatenated field even though it reduced the worst case query time to one tenth of what I had been seeing. But for now I'm going to keep it there because I'm ignorant about triggers so this will be a good opportunity to learn about them before I drop the column for something more efficient, assuming there is. sa -- Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general
