On Mon, Jan 24, 2005 at 09:24:49AM -0500, Greg Stark wrote: > "Jim C. Nasby" <decibel@xxxxxxxxxxx> writes: > > > Well, every other database I've used can do index covering, which means > > index scans *are* faster. > > Still not necessarily true. In a case like this it would still be random > access which would be slower than sequential access. Actually, even with random access, a covering index can still be faster. Imagine a single-field index on a table with 40 fields. -- Jim C. Nasby, Database Consultant decibel@xxxxxxxxxxx Give your computer some brain candy! www.distributed.net Team #1828 Windows: "Where do you want to go today?" Linux: "Where do you want to go tomorrow?" FreeBSD: "Are you guys coming, or what?" ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 7: don't forget to increase your free space map settings
