| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Julien Rouhaud <rjuju123(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Thomas Munro <thomas(dot)munro(at)gmail(dot)com>, Marc Cousin <cousinmarc(at)gmail(dot)com>, Alexander Korotkov <a(dot)korotkov(at)postgrespro(dot)ru>, Tomas Vondra <tomas(dot)vondra(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Nikita Glukhov <n(dot)gluhov(at)postgrespro(dot)ru>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Avoid full GIN index scan when possible |
| Date: | 2019-08-01 14:37:06 |
| Message-ID: | 12611.1564670226@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Julien Rouhaud <rjuju123(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> Attached v4 that should address all comments.
Eyeing this a bit further ... doesn't scanPendingInsert also need
to honor so->forcedRecheck? Something along the lines of
- tbm_add_tuples(tbm, &pos.item, 1, recheck);
+ tbm_add_tuples(tbm, &pos.item, 1, recheck | so->forcedRecheck);
at line 1837? (Obviously, there's more than one way you could
write that.)
I'm also not exactly satisfied with the new comments --- they aren't
conveying much, and the XXX in one of them is confusing; does that
mean you're unsure that the comment is correct?
The added test case seems a bit unsatisfying as well, in that it
fails to retrieve any rows. It's not very clear what it's
trying to test.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Dean Rasheed | 2019-08-01 14:42:35 | Re: Multivariate MCV list vs. statistics target |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2019-08-01 14:14:54 | Re: Partial join |