-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On 12/12/06 23:13, Anton wrote: [snip] >> Why do you have indexes on both LOGIN_ID *and* LOGIN_ID + >> COLLECT_TIME? > It is because I think that queries which use only LOGIN_ID field > will use (faster) LOGIN_IDonly index... For me, speed of > insertions is not a primary task here (robot is not confused by > delays...), but select is. So I keep both indexes. Figured. Understandable thought, and valid for a *hashed* index. Also valid for COLLECT_TIME, since it's the 2nd segment of the index. Because of the nature of b-tree indexes, though, the optimizer *will* use n_traffic_login_id_collect_time when you say WHERE LOGIN_ID = 5; >> ISTM that you can drop the LOGIN_ID index. - -- Ron Johnson, Jr. Jefferson LA USA Is "common sense" really valid? For example, it is "common sense" to white-power racists that whites are superior to blacks, and that those with brown skins are mud people. However, that "common sense" is obviously wrong. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFFgAc3S9HxQb37XmcRAnGPAKCgRBJ1ADJ/chYqIDZhVdZhwKB6YQCeNevb +DnTXM/8utMXyN5s+zA//lU= =DKb/ -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
