From: | Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Gregory Stark <stark(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> |
Cc: | PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Another idea for index-only scans |
Date: | 2007-08-15 19:15:46 |
Message-ID: | 200708151915.l7FJFkH23181@momjian.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Gregory Stark wrote:
> "Bruce Momjian" <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> writes:
>
> > I have added another idea for index-only scans to the TODO list:
> >
> >> A third idea would be for a heap scan to check if all rows are visible
> >> and if so set a per-table flag which can be checked by index scans.
> >> Any change to the table would have to clear the flag. To detect
> >> changes during the heap scan a counter could be set at the start and
> >> checked at the end --- if it is the same, the table has not been
> >> modified --- any table change would increment the counter.
>
> I think I would prefer to address this in the same infrastructure as the
> dead-space-map. That way you're not dependent on having no updates happening
> on the table at all. Any tuples on pages which contain no in-doubt tuples
> could have their visibility check skipped but when you come across a tuple on
> a page which has been modified since the last vacuum then you have to check
> the visibility.
Yea, the bitmap/page idea is already on the TODO list. This was just a
less granular idea.
--
Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> http://momjian.us
EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com
+ If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. +
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2007-08-15 19:15:47 | pgsql: Repair problems occurring when multiple RI updates have to be |
Previous Message | Magnus Hagander | 2007-08-15 19:13:19 | Re: CVS corruption/mistagging? |