Re: Index AM change proposals, redux

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>
Cc: pgsql-hackers(at)postgreSQL(dot)org
Subject: Re: Index AM change proposals, redux
Date: 2008-04-23 16:07:10
Message-ID: 12592.1208966830@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> writes:
> I don't see the "returns index keys" idea as being killed by or killing
> this concept. Returning keys is valid and useful when we can, but there
> are other considerations that, in some use cases, will be a dominant
> factor.

The patch as-submitted was a killer for the concept, because it
automatically discarded information and there was no way to prevent
that. To be acceptable, a GIT patch would have to be optional and it
would have to expose in the catalogs whether a given index was lossy
in this way or not (so that the planner could know whether a plan based
on returning index keys would work).

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Joshua D. Drake 2008-04-23 16:24:42 Re: WIP: psql default banner patch v3
Previous Message Simon Riggs 2008-04-23 16:04:32 Re: Index AM change proposals, redux