? You currently have "tipo" in second place in
your candidate index.
Thanks,
Kevin
From: Moreno Andreo
Sent: Friday, March 28, 2025 5:38 AM
To: PostgreSQL mailing lists
Subject: BTREE index: field ordering
Hi,
Postgres 16.4 (planning to go on 17.4)
I&#x
On Fri, Mar 28, 2025 at 9:24 AM Ron Johnson wrote:
>
> "at least for WHERE conditions that are selective" confuses me. Aren't
> _all_ WHERE clauses selective?
>
>
>From earlier in the email, selectivity is a scale, the wording here implies
"has a meaningful selectivity".
"Fundamentally yes, but
On Fri, Mar 28, 2025 at 10:02 AM David G. Johnston <
david.g.johns...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Selectivity is evaluating cardinality with an eye on the frequency of
> the values you are actually going to be filtering on. So low cardinality
> booleans can be highly selective in usage if you are looking
On Fri, Mar 28, 2025 at 9:35 AM Laurenz Albe
wrote:
> On Fri, 2025-03-28 at 13:38 +0100, Moreno Andreo wrote:
> > Postgres 16.4 (planning to go on 17.4)
> > I'm creating some indexes based on some slow query reported by logs.
> > These queries involve a WHERE with more than 5 fields, that are
On Fri, 2025-03-28 at 13:38 +0100, Moreno Andreo wrote:
> Postgres 16.4 (planning to go on 17.4)
> I'm creating some indexes based on some slow query reported by logs.
> These queries involve a WHERE with more than 5 fields, that are matching by
> =, <>, LIKE and IN()
> I read that equality
Hi,
Postgres 16.4 (planning to go on 17.4)
I'm creating some indexes based on some slow query reported by logs.
These queries involve a WHERE with more than 5 fields, that are matching
by =, <>, LIKE and IN()
I read that equality fields must be first, then the others.
Is it correct?
Based on th
