Covering index used despite missing columnInnoDB - Use combined index with primary key on GROUP BYMust an index cover all selected columns for it to be used for ORDER BY?Proper Index for WHERE X <> 1 AND Y <> 1 ORDER BY ZIs index on foreign key used? (No difference in EXPLAIN.)Awful execution plans after migrating from MySQL 5.5.11 to MariaDB 5.5.41MySQL query WHERE IN + ORDER BY, which EXPLAIN is better and how to avoid filesort?MySQL Query causing high CPU and taking forever to executeWhy is a query with a join and limit clause running so slow, even using a covering index?Do we need index on “order by” if the “where” clause alreday have index ( small data set )Primary index is being used, not the one which is on the field present in the where condition

Subtract the Folded Matrix

What is the most suitable position for a bishop here?

Non-misogynistic way to say “asshole”?

Why is it easier to balance a non-moving bike standing up than sitting down?

Print one file per line using echo

Extending prime numbers digit by digit while retaining primality

Warnings using NDSolve on wave PDE. "Using maximum number of grid points" , "Warning: scaled local spatial error estimate"

Should the party get XP for a monster they never attacked?

A word for delight at someone else's failure?

What happened to Hopper's girlfriend in season one?

Dates on degrees don’t make sense – will people care?

What are Elsa's reasons for selecting the Holy Grail on behalf of Donovan?

Is the continuity test limit resistance of a multimeter standard?

What are the current battlegrounds for people’s “rights” in the UK?

"Correct me if I'm wrong"

Why does independence imply zero correlation?

Prisoner on alien planet escapes by making up a story about ghost companions and wins the war

Definition of 'vrit'

Is there any proof that high saturation and contrast makes a picture more appealing in social media?

King or Queen-Which piece is which?

Cut the gold chain

Covering index used despite missing column

Why don't countries like Japan just print more money?

Methodology: Writing unit tests for another developer



Covering index used despite missing column


InnoDB - Use combined index with primary key on GROUP BYMust an index cover all selected columns for it to be used for ORDER BY?Proper Index for WHERE X <> 1 AND Y <> 1 ORDER BY ZIs index on foreign key used? (No difference in EXPLAIN.)Awful execution plans after migrating from MySQL 5.5.11 to MariaDB 5.5.41MySQL query WHERE IN + ORDER BY, which EXPLAIN is better and how to avoid filesort?MySQL Query causing high CPU and taking forever to executeWhy is a query with a join and limit clause running so slow, even using a covering index?Do we need index on “order by” if the “where” clause alreday have index ( small data set )Primary index is being used, not the one which is on the field present in the where condition






.everyoneloves__top-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__mid-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__bot-mid-leaderboard:empty margin-bottom:0;








1















I have the following query, using MariaDB 10 / InnoDB:



SELECT id, sender_id, receiver_id, thread_id, date_created, content 
FROM user_message
WHERE thread_id = 12345
AND placeholder = FALSE
ORDER BY date_created DESC
LIMIT 20


This query fetches messages according to the given conditions and sorts by date created.



I have a covering index over (thread_id, date_created).



When running EXPLAIN, the correct index is used and I get the output "Using where", although the query is using a column in the middle of the statement that is not in the index. I can use any value for "placeholder = x" and the result is the same.



If I change the sorting to use another column, the EXPLAIN correctly indicates "Using where. Using filesort."



I'm having a head-scratching moment. Could anyone please shed light on this? What I would expect to see is that an additional filesort would be needed as the covering index could not be completed used due to the additional column.










share|improve this question




























    1















    I have the following query, using MariaDB 10 / InnoDB:



    SELECT id, sender_id, receiver_id, thread_id, date_created, content 
    FROM user_message
    WHERE thread_id = 12345
    AND placeholder = FALSE
    ORDER BY date_created DESC
    LIMIT 20


    This query fetches messages according to the given conditions and sorts by date created.



    I have a covering index over (thread_id, date_created).



    When running EXPLAIN, the correct index is used and I get the output "Using where", although the query is using a column in the middle of the statement that is not in the index. I can use any value for "placeholder = x" and the result is the same.



    If I change the sorting to use another column, the EXPLAIN correctly indicates "Using where. Using filesort."



    I'm having a head-scratching moment. Could anyone please shed light on this? What I would expect to see is that an additional filesort would be needed as the covering index could not be completed used due to the additional column.










    share|improve this question
























      1












      1








      1








      I have the following query, using MariaDB 10 / InnoDB:



      SELECT id, sender_id, receiver_id, thread_id, date_created, content 
      FROM user_message
      WHERE thread_id = 12345
      AND placeholder = FALSE
      ORDER BY date_created DESC
      LIMIT 20


      This query fetches messages according to the given conditions and sorts by date created.



      I have a covering index over (thread_id, date_created).



      When running EXPLAIN, the correct index is used and I get the output "Using where", although the query is using a column in the middle of the statement that is not in the index. I can use any value for "placeholder = x" and the result is the same.



      If I change the sorting to use another column, the EXPLAIN correctly indicates "Using where. Using filesort."



      I'm having a head-scratching moment. Could anyone please shed light on this? What I would expect to see is that an additional filesort would be needed as the covering index could not be completed used due to the additional column.










      share|improve this question














      I have the following query, using MariaDB 10 / InnoDB:



      SELECT id, sender_id, receiver_id, thread_id, date_created, content 
      FROM user_message
      WHERE thread_id = 12345
      AND placeholder = FALSE
      ORDER BY date_created DESC
      LIMIT 20


      This query fetches messages according to the given conditions and sorts by date created.



      I have a covering index over (thread_id, date_created).



      When running EXPLAIN, the correct index is used and I get the output "Using where", although the query is using a column in the middle of the statement that is not in the index. I can use any value for "placeholder = x" and the result is the same.



      If I change the sorting to use another column, the EXPLAIN correctly indicates "Using where. Using filesort."



      I'm having a head-scratching moment. Could anyone please shed light on this? What I would expect to see is that an additional filesort would be needed as the covering index could not be completed used due to the additional column.







      index innodb mariadb covering-index






      share|improve this question













      share|improve this question











      share|improve this question




      share|improve this question










      asked 8 hours ago









      TomTom

      1204




      1204




















          2 Answers
          2






          active

          oldest

          votes


















          2














          Case A

          Query:



          WHERE thread_id = 12345 
          AND placeholder = FALSE
          ORDER BY some_column DESC
          LIMIT 20


          Index:



          (thread_id, date_created)


          Plan:



          Index is used
          Using Where
          Using filesort


          No problem there, right? If the index is used (to partially match the WHERE condition), we still need a sort operation to order the results by some_column (which is not in the index). We also need an extra check (Using Where) to keep only the rows that match the 2nd condition, too. OK.




          Case B (the question)

          Query:



          WHERE thread_id = 12345 
          AND placeholder = FALSE
          ORDER BY date_created DESC
          LIMIT 20


          Index:



          (thread_id, date_created)


          Plan:



          Index is used
          Using Where
          -- no "Using filesort"


          So, why does it not need a sort here? Because the index is enough to sort as the query wants. There is of course the additional problem of the extra condition (AND placeholder = FALSE) which is not covered by the index.



          OK but we don't really need a sort here. The index can provide us with results that match the first condition (WHERE thread_id = 12345) and are in the wanted order for output. The only additional check we need - and what the plan does - is to get the rows from the table, in the order provided by the index, and check this 2nd condition until we get 20 matches. That's what the **Using Where"" means.



          We may get the 20 matches in the first 20 rows (so really good and fast) or in the first 100 (still likely fast enough) or in the first 1000000 (probably very, very slow) or we may get just 19 matches from the table even after reading all the matching rows from the index (really very slow on a big table). It all depends on the distribution of data.




          Case C (even better plan)

          Query:



          WHERE thread_id = 12345 
          AND placeholder = FALSE
          ORDER BY date_created DESC
          LIMIT 20


          Index:



          (placeholder, thread_id, date_created)


          Plan:



          Index is used
          -- no "Using Where"
          -- no "Using filesort"


          Now our index matches both conditions and the order by. The plan is pretty simple: get the first* 20 matches from the index and read the corresponding rows from the table. No extra check (No "Using Where") and no sort (no "Using filesort") needed.



          first*: the first 20 when reading the index backwards from the end (as we have ORDER BY .. DESC) but that's not a problem. B-tree indexes can be read forwards and backwards with almost equal performance.






          share|improve this answer

























          • Thank you - this is a great explanation.

            – Tom
            7 hours ago


















          2















          • Using index indicates a "Covering index" -- All the columns anywhere in the SELECT are anywhere in the one index. So, you do not have a "covering" index. And it is not practical to make a covering index for your query (too many columns mentioned).


          • Using where -- mostly noise.


          • Using filesort -- The query needs a sort, but it might be in RAM or in a temp table. And there may be multiple sorts (eg, GROUP BY x ORDER BY b)


          • Either of these will make it possible to look only at 20 rows; any other index will require more rows be touched, possibly the entire table:



            INDEX(thread_id, placeholder, date_created)
            INDEX(placeholder, thread_id, date_created)


          • No, the cardinality of the components of a composite index does not matter when ordering the columns in the index.


          My Cookbook explains how to derive the optimal index, given a SELECT.






          share|improve this answer























            Your Answer








            StackExchange.ready(function()
            var channelOptions =
            tags: "".split(" "),
            id: "182"
            ;
            initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

            StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function()
            // Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
            if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled)
            StackExchange.using("snippets", function()
            createEditor();
            );

            else
            createEditor();

            );

            function createEditor()
            StackExchange.prepareEditor(
            heartbeatType: 'answer',
            autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
            convertImagesToLinks: false,
            noModals: true,
            showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
            reputationToPostImages: null,
            bindNavPrevention: true,
            postfix: "",
            imageUploader:
            brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
            contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
            allowUrls: true
            ,
            onDemand: true,
            discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
            ,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
            );



            );













            draft saved

            draft discarded


















            StackExchange.ready(
            function ()
            StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fdba.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f240742%2fcovering-index-used-despite-missing-column%23new-answer', 'question_page');

            );

            Post as a guest















            Required, but never shown

























            2 Answers
            2






            active

            oldest

            votes








            2 Answers
            2






            active

            oldest

            votes









            active

            oldest

            votes






            active

            oldest

            votes









            2














            Case A

            Query:



            WHERE thread_id = 12345 
            AND placeholder = FALSE
            ORDER BY some_column DESC
            LIMIT 20


            Index:



            (thread_id, date_created)


            Plan:



            Index is used
            Using Where
            Using filesort


            No problem there, right? If the index is used (to partially match the WHERE condition), we still need a sort operation to order the results by some_column (which is not in the index). We also need an extra check (Using Where) to keep only the rows that match the 2nd condition, too. OK.




            Case B (the question)

            Query:



            WHERE thread_id = 12345 
            AND placeholder = FALSE
            ORDER BY date_created DESC
            LIMIT 20


            Index:



            (thread_id, date_created)


            Plan:



            Index is used
            Using Where
            -- no "Using filesort"


            So, why does it not need a sort here? Because the index is enough to sort as the query wants. There is of course the additional problem of the extra condition (AND placeholder = FALSE) which is not covered by the index.



            OK but we don't really need a sort here. The index can provide us with results that match the first condition (WHERE thread_id = 12345) and are in the wanted order for output. The only additional check we need - and what the plan does - is to get the rows from the table, in the order provided by the index, and check this 2nd condition until we get 20 matches. That's what the **Using Where"" means.



            We may get the 20 matches in the first 20 rows (so really good and fast) or in the first 100 (still likely fast enough) or in the first 1000000 (probably very, very slow) or we may get just 19 matches from the table even after reading all the matching rows from the index (really very slow on a big table). It all depends on the distribution of data.




            Case C (even better plan)

            Query:



            WHERE thread_id = 12345 
            AND placeholder = FALSE
            ORDER BY date_created DESC
            LIMIT 20


            Index:



            (placeholder, thread_id, date_created)


            Plan:



            Index is used
            -- no "Using Where"
            -- no "Using filesort"


            Now our index matches both conditions and the order by. The plan is pretty simple: get the first* 20 matches from the index and read the corresponding rows from the table. No extra check (No "Using Where") and no sort (no "Using filesort") needed.



            first*: the first 20 when reading the index backwards from the end (as we have ORDER BY .. DESC) but that's not a problem. B-tree indexes can be read forwards and backwards with almost equal performance.






            share|improve this answer

























            • Thank you - this is a great explanation.

              – Tom
              7 hours ago















            2














            Case A

            Query:



            WHERE thread_id = 12345 
            AND placeholder = FALSE
            ORDER BY some_column DESC
            LIMIT 20


            Index:



            (thread_id, date_created)


            Plan:



            Index is used
            Using Where
            Using filesort


            No problem there, right? If the index is used (to partially match the WHERE condition), we still need a sort operation to order the results by some_column (which is not in the index). We also need an extra check (Using Where) to keep only the rows that match the 2nd condition, too. OK.




            Case B (the question)

            Query:



            WHERE thread_id = 12345 
            AND placeholder = FALSE
            ORDER BY date_created DESC
            LIMIT 20


            Index:



            (thread_id, date_created)


            Plan:



            Index is used
            Using Where
            -- no "Using filesort"


            So, why does it not need a sort here? Because the index is enough to sort as the query wants. There is of course the additional problem of the extra condition (AND placeholder = FALSE) which is not covered by the index.



            OK but we don't really need a sort here. The index can provide us with results that match the first condition (WHERE thread_id = 12345) and are in the wanted order for output. The only additional check we need - and what the plan does - is to get the rows from the table, in the order provided by the index, and check this 2nd condition until we get 20 matches. That's what the **Using Where"" means.



            We may get the 20 matches in the first 20 rows (so really good and fast) or in the first 100 (still likely fast enough) or in the first 1000000 (probably very, very slow) or we may get just 19 matches from the table even after reading all the matching rows from the index (really very slow on a big table). It all depends on the distribution of data.




            Case C (even better plan)

            Query:



            WHERE thread_id = 12345 
            AND placeholder = FALSE
            ORDER BY date_created DESC
            LIMIT 20


            Index:



            (placeholder, thread_id, date_created)


            Plan:



            Index is used
            -- no "Using Where"
            -- no "Using filesort"


            Now our index matches both conditions and the order by. The plan is pretty simple: get the first* 20 matches from the index and read the corresponding rows from the table. No extra check (No "Using Where") and no sort (no "Using filesort") needed.



            first*: the first 20 when reading the index backwards from the end (as we have ORDER BY .. DESC) but that's not a problem. B-tree indexes can be read forwards and backwards with almost equal performance.






            share|improve this answer

























            • Thank you - this is a great explanation.

              – Tom
              7 hours ago













            2












            2








            2







            Case A

            Query:



            WHERE thread_id = 12345 
            AND placeholder = FALSE
            ORDER BY some_column DESC
            LIMIT 20


            Index:



            (thread_id, date_created)


            Plan:



            Index is used
            Using Where
            Using filesort


            No problem there, right? If the index is used (to partially match the WHERE condition), we still need a sort operation to order the results by some_column (which is not in the index). We also need an extra check (Using Where) to keep only the rows that match the 2nd condition, too. OK.




            Case B (the question)

            Query:



            WHERE thread_id = 12345 
            AND placeholder = FALSE
            ORDER BY date_created DESC
            LIMIT 20


            Index:



            (thread_id, date_created)


            Plan:



            Index is used
            Using Where
            -- no "Using filesort"


            So, why does it not need a sort here? Because the index is enough to sort as the query wants. There is of course the additional problem of the extra condition (AND placeholder = FALSE) which is not covered by the index.



            OK but we don't really need a sort here. The index can provide us with results that match the first condition (WHERE thread_id = 12345) and are in the wanted order for output. The only additional check we need - and what the plan does - is to get the rows from the table, in the order provided by the index, and check this 2nd condition until we get 20 matches. That's what the **Using Where"" means.



            We may get the 20 matches in the first 20 rows (so really good and fast) or in the first 100 (still likely fast enough) or in the first 1000000 (probably very, very slow) or we may get just 19 matches from the table even after reading all the matching rows from the index (really very slow on a big table). It all depends on the distribution of data.




            Case C (even better plan)

            Query:



            WHERE thread_id = 12345 
            AND placeholder = FALSE
            ORDER BY date_created DESC
            LIMIT 20


            Index:



            (placeholder, thread_id, date_created)


            Plan:



            Index is used
            -- no "Using Where"
            -- no "Using filesort"


            Now our index matches both conditions and the order by. The plan is pretty simple: get the first* 20 matches from the index and read the corresponding rows from the table. No extra check (No "Using Where") and no sort (no "Using filesort") needed.



            first*: the first 20 when reading the index backwards from the end (as we have ORDER BY .. DESC) but that's not a problem. B-tree indexes can be read forwards and backwards with almost equal performance.






            share|improve this answer















            Case A

            Query:



            WHERE thread_id = 12345 
            AND placeholder = FALSE
            ORDER BY some_column DESC
            LIMIT 20


            Index:



            (thread_id, date_created)


            Plan:



            Index is used
            Using Where
            Using filesort


            No problem there, right? If the index is used (to partially match the WHERE condition), we still need a sort operation to order the results by some_column (which is not in the index). We also need an extra check (Using Where) to keep only the rows that match the 2nd condition, too. OK.




            Case B (the question)

            Query:



            WHERE thread_id = 12345 
            AND placeholder = FALSE
            ORDER BY date_created DESC
            LIMIT 20


            Index:



            (thread_id, date_created)


            Plan:



            Index is used
            Using Where
            -- no "Using filesort"


            So, why does it not need a sort here? Because the index is enough to sort as the query wants. There is of course the additional problem of the extra condition (AND placeholder = FALSE) which is not covered by the index.



            OK but we don't really need a sort here. The index can provide us with results that match the first condition (WHERE thread_id = 12345) and are in the wanted order for output. The only additional check we need - and what the plan does - is to get the rows from the table, in the order provided by the index, and check this 2nd condition until we get 20 matches. That's what the **Using Where"" means.



            We may get the 20 matches in the first 20 rows (so really good and fast) or in the first 100 (still likely fast enough) or in the first 1000000 (probably very, very slow) or we may get just 19 matches from the table even after reading all the matching rows from the index (really very slow on a big table). It all depends on the distribution of data.




            Case C (even better plan)

            Query:



            WHERE thread_id = 12345 
            AND placeholder = FALSE
            ORDER BY date_created DESC
            LIMIT 20


            Index:



            (placeholder, thread_id, date_created)


            Plan:



            Index is used
            -- no "Using Where"
            -- no "Using filesort"


            Now our index matches both conditions and the order by. The plan is pretty simple: get the first* 20 matches from the index and read the corresponding rows from the table. No extra check (No "Using Where") and no sort (no "Using filesort") needed.



            first*: the first 20 when reading the index backwards from the end (as we have ORDER BY .. DESC) but that's not a problem. B-tree indexes can be read forwards and backwards with almost equal performance.







            share|improve this answer














            share|improve this answer



            share|improve this answer








            edited 7 hours ago

























            answered 8 hours ago









            ypercubeᵀᴹypercubeᵀᴹ

            79.4k11138225




            79.4k11138225












            • Thank you - this is a great explanation.

              – Tom
              7 hours ago

















            • Thank you - this is a great explanation.

              – Tom
              7 hours ago
















            Thank you - this is a great explanation.

            – Tom
            7 hours ago





            Thank you - this is a great explanation.

            – Tom
            7 hours ago













            2















            • Using index indicates a "Covering index" -- All the columns anywhere in the SELECT are anywhere in the one index. So, you do not have a "covering" index. And it is not practical to make a covering index for your query (too many columns mentioned).


            • Using where -- mostly noise.


            • Using filesort -- The query needs a sort, but it might be in RAM or in a temp table. And there may be multiple sorts (eg, GROUP BY x ORDER BY b)


            • Either of these will make it possible to look only at 20 rows; any other index will require more rows be touched, possibly the entire table:



              INDEX(thread_id, placeholder, date_created)
              INDEX(placeholder, thread_id, date_created)


            • No, the cardinality of the components of a composite index does not matter when ordering the columns in the index.


            My Cookbook explains how to derive the optimal index, given a SELECT.






            share|improve this answer



























              2















              • Using index indicates a "Covering index" -- All the columns anywhere in the SELECT are anywhere in the one index. So, you do not have a "covering" index. And it is not practical to make a covering index for your query (too many columns mentioned).


              • Using where -- mostly noise.


              • Using filesort -- The query needs a sort, but it might be in RAM or in a temp table. And there may be multiple sorts (eg, GROUP BY x ORDER BY b)


              • Either of these will make it possible to look only at 20 rows; any other index will require more rows be touched, possibly the entire table:



                INDEX(thread_id, placeholder, date_created)
                INDEX(placeholder, thread_id, date_created)


              • No, the cardinality of the components of a composite index does not matter when ordering the columns in the index.


              My Cookbook explains how to derive the optimal index, given a SELECT.






              share|improve this answer

























                2












                2








                2








                • Using index indicates a "Covering index" -- All the columns anywhere in the SELECT are anywhere in the one index. So, you do not have a "covering" index. And it is not practical to make a covering index for your query (too many columns mentioned).


                • Using where -- mostly noise.


                • Using filesort -- The query needs a sort, but it might be in RAM or in a temp table. And there may be multiple sorts (eg, GROUP BY x ORDER BY b)


                • Either of these will make it possible to look only at 20 rows; any other index will require more rows be touched, possibly the entire table:



                  INDEX(thread_id, placeholder, date_created)
                  INDEX(placeholder, thread_id, date_created)


                • No, the cardinality of the components of a composite index does not matter when ordering the columns in the index.


                My Cookbook explains how to derive the optimal index, given a SELECT.






                share|improve this answer














                • Using index indicates a "Covering index" -- All the columns anywhere in the SELECT are anywhere in the one index. So, you do not have a "covering" index. And it is not practical to make a covering index for your query (too many columns mentioned).


                • Using where -- mostly noise.


                • Using filesort -- The query needs a sort, but it might be in RAM or in a temp table. And there may be multiple sorts (eg, GROUP BY x ORDER BY b)


                • Either of these will make it possible to look only at 20 rows; any other index will require more rows be touched, possibly the entire table:



                  INDEX(thread_id, placeholder, date_created)
                  INDEX(placeholder, thread_id, date_created)


                • No, the cardinality of the components of a composite index does not matter when ordering the columns in the index.


                My Cookbook explains how to derive the optimal index, given a SELECT.







                share|improve this answer












                share|improve this answer



                share|improve this answer










                answered 6 hours ago









                Rick JamesRick James

                44.8k22462




                44.8k22462



























                    draft saved

                    draft discarded
















































                    Thanks for contributing an answer to Database Administrators Stack Exchange!


                    • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

                    But avoid


                    • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

                    • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.

                    To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.




                    draft saved


                    draft discarded














                    StackExchange.ready(
                    function ()
                    StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fdba.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f240742%2fcovering-index-used-despite-missing-column%23new-answer', 'question_page');

                    );

                    Post as a guest















                    Required, but never shown





















































                    Required, but never shown














                    Required, but never shown












                    Required, but never shown







                    Required, but never shown

































                    Required, but never shown














                    Required, but never shown












                    Required, but never shown







                    Required, but never shown







                    Popular posts from this blog

                    Invision Community Contents History See also References External links Navigation menuProprietaryinvisioncommunity.comIPS Community ForumsIPS Community Forumsthis blog entry"License Changes, IP.Board 3.4, and the Future""Interview -- Matt Mecham of Ibforums""CEO Invision Power Board, Matt Mecham Is a Liar, Thief!"IPB License Explanation 1.3, 1.3.1, 2.0, and 2.1ArchivedSecurity Fixes, Updates And Enhancements For IPB 1.3.1Archived"New Demo Accounts - Invision Power Services"the original"New Default Skin"the original"Invision Power Board 3.0.0 and Applications Released"the original"Archived copy"the original"Perpetual licenses being done away with""Release Notes - Invision Power Services""Introducing: IPS Community Suite 4!"Invision Community Release Notes

                    Canceling a color specificationRandomly assigning color to Graphics3D objects?Default color for Filling in Mathematica 9Coloring specific elements of sets with a prime modified order in an array plotHow to pick a color differing significantly from the colors already in a given color list?Detection of the text colorColor numbers based on their valueCan color schemes for use with ColorData include opacity specification?My dynamic color schemes

                    Ласкавець круглолистий Зміст Опис | Поширення | Галерея | Примітки | Посилання | Навігаційне меню58171138361-22960890446Bupleurum rotundifoliumEuro+Med PlantbasePlants of the World Online — Kew ScienceGermplasm Resources Information Network (GRIN)Ласкавецькн. VI : Літери Ком — Левиправивши або дописавши її