i want to clarify things up but I don’t think it’s fair to criticize my understanding for something that is explained with a query optimization that will rearrange the query. I am not saying you’re wrong or contesting that in any format. What I am saying is that I am little bit confused about how to look at certain things with indexing and assume the correct answer.
The questions were easy to infer with review of the lessons but the points carried over from 1 part to the next get a little hairy in understanding of how something should be.
For example when it is said, Equality, Sort, Range. I am assuming I will see something in the order of equality sort range in my query. However, you’re saying that isn’t the pure case for E and the R part because the query optimizer will change / switch things around to make it work the best way.
So again, when I’m looking at something that has an index of ERS. right? that’s the index.
the query is ERS. to me that was an incorrect usage of ESR. so I didn’t choose it.
However, when I went to the lesson the index of the example was this… ESR
the query was RES… Now, what you’ve said previously is that the query optimizer will rearrange the E and R so that the equality field fits the index first. That is a little confusing.
To me, looking at again the emphasis of ESR should be on the index creation. Which in the video it was. But then the confusing part is nothing is in order of the index for the query. Essential the query is RES as I stated previously. And when you consider for indexing the predicate and order scenarios it adds a layer of confusion.
It seems as in the case of ESR that is a specialized case that makes the query fit the index and the only thing consistent is there being a sort.
maybe I’m confused, maybe i am thinking of things incorrectly. not the index creation but the query part. But when you think of other parts in other lessons it’s a little bit confusing. I appreciate your help