From: | Kyotaro HORIGUCHI <horiguchi(dot)kyotaro(at)lab(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp> |
---|---|
To: | tomas(dot)vondra(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com |
Cc: | kgrittn(at)ymail(dot)com, simon(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: PATCH: index-only scans with partial indexes |
Date: | 2015-09-18 01:46:10 |
Message-ID: | 20150918.104610.199079215.horiguchi.kyotaro@lab.ntt.co.jp |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Hello,
At Thu, 17 Sep 2015 17:40:27 +0200, Tomas Vondra <tomas(dot)vondra(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> wrote in <55FADEEB(dot)4000907(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>
> Yes, this seems sane. I've been poking at this a bit too, and I came
> to the same plan in general, except that I think it's better to build
> list of clauses that are *not* implied by the index, because that's
> what we need both in cost_index and check_index_only.
I intended to isolate IndexOptInfo from belonging RelOptInfo but
the exclusion list also bonds them tightly, and one IndexOptInfo
belongs to only one RelOptInfo so no need to isolate. So
not-implied-restrictclauses in IndexOptInfo would be preferable.
> It also seems to me that this change (arguably a bug fix) should
> pretty much make the original patch irrelevant, because
> check_index_only can simply walk over the new list.
Yeah. This seems to be a bug irrelevant to your index-only-scan
ptch.
regards,
--
Kyotaro Horiguchi
NTT Open Source Software Center
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Jan Wieck | 2015-09-18 02:01:45 | Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Fix an O(N^2) problem in foreign key references. |
Previous Message | Kouhei Kaigai | 2015-09-18 01:01:22 | Re: numbering plan nodes |