On Fri, Oct 23, 2009 at 9:32 PM, semi-ambivalent <thefronny@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Oct 23, 5:10 am, cr...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (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...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx) >> 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. The multi column index should give you equivalent speed. -- Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general
