| From: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Jeff Davis <pgsql(at)j-davis(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgreSQL(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Another idea for index-only scans |
| Date: | 2007-08-16 20:06:35 |
| Message-ID: | 20070816200635.GB27775@alvh.no-ip.org |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Jeff Davis wrote:
> On Wed, 2007-08-15 at 11:54 -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> > 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.
>
> This sounds useful for read-only or read-mostly tables.
I think it's too coarse-grained to be really useful. If it was one bit
per page it could work, but one bit per relation is going to be reset
too frequently.
--
Alvaro Herrera http://www.CommandPrompt.com/
PostgreSQL Replication, Consulting, Custom Development, 24x7 support
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Decibel! | 2007-08-16 20:19:18 | Re: Another idea for index-only scans |
| Previous Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2007-08-16 20:04:57 | Re: build farm failures |