From: | Russell Smith <mr-russ(at)pws(dot)com(dot)au> |
---|---|
To: | Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | Hannu Krosing <hannu(at)skype(dot)net>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: possible TODO: read-only tables, select from indexes only. |
Date: | 2005-04-23 03:43:47 |
Message-ID: | 200504231343.47527.mr-russ@pws.com.au |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Sat, 23 Apr 2005 03:14 am, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> Hannu Krosing wrote:
> > On R, 2005-04-22 at 11:40 -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> > > See this TODO:
> > >
> > > * Allow data to be pulled directly from indexes
> > >
> > > Currently indexes do not have enough tuple visibility information
> > > to allow data to be pulled from the index without also accessing
> > > the heap. One way to allow this is to set a bit to index tuples
> > > to indicate if a tuple is currently visible to all transactions
> > > when the first valid heap lookup happens.
> >
Storing visibility information in the index has always been put down as a cause of
performance problems. Would it be plausible to have an index type that included the
information and one that didn't. You could choose which way you wanted to go.
I know especially for some tables, I would choose this index with visibility as it would
increase performance by not looking at the table at all for that information (count being a good example). However
for general purpose indexes I would use the normal index with no visibility information.
The possibly of the bit method or full tuples is probably a decision for others, but having
the flexibility to choose in this would be a great thing.
Regards
Russell Smith
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Bruce Momjian | 2005-04-23 04:02:52 | Re: possible TODO: read-only tables, select from indexes only. |
Previous Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2005-04-23 02:21:05 | Re: Woo hoo ... a whole new set of compiler headaches!! |