From: | Tatsuo Ishii <t-ishii(at)sra(dot)co(dot)jp> |
---|---|
To: | tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us |
Cc: | pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: partial index on system indexes? |
Date: | 2002-07-24 14:49:20 |
Message-ID: | 20020724.234920.50337526.t-ishii@sra.co.jp |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
> This sounds like a really bad idea to me. A syscache based on a partial
> index is almost certainly not going to work.
>
> Before we invest in a lot of effort making bootstrap, syscache, and who
> knows what else support partial indexes, I want to see a very clear
> explanation why we must do it. Note I am looking for "*must* do it",
> not "it makes this other part of the system a little simpler".
Ok, I'm going to look into bootstrap and syscache etc. codes more to
study why "a syscache based on a partial index is almost certainly not
going to work" and how hard it would be to fix that when I have spare
time.
In the mean time I'm going to add an unique index to pg_conversion
(actually it is not so unique one. I will add the oid column to it so
that it seems "unique") and use SearchSysCacheList(). As far as I know
this is the only way to avoid heap scan every time an encoding
conversion is performed if partial index cannot be used.
Once I thought of a conversion lookup cache, but it seems impossible
to implent it since the cache needs to be invalidated when the schema
search path is changed.
--
Tatsuo Ishii
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2002-07-24 15:05:49 | Re: partial index on system indexes? |
Previous Message | Rod Taylor | 2002-07-24 11:23:36 | Re: CREATE SYNONYM suggestions |