> Svein Erling Tysvær wrote:
>>
>>Drop the index on Store_No, the selectivity is too poor for the index
>>to be useful (your GROUP BY query should execute somewhat faster
>>without this index, probably equal to your DISTINCT query).
>

Kjell Rilbe wrote:

>
> And why doesn't FB automatically ignore an index with such bad
> selectivity in this situation? Is there *any* situation where this index
> should actually be used? I doubt it. So the engine should ignore it.
>

That is actually an area that 1.5 addresses somewhat and 2.0 handles
much better. 1.5 was the first version to try to avoid indexes that
didn't improve performance. 2.0 actually lets indexes like that work in
the cases where they can.

Regards,


Ann