| From: | Mark Dilger <mark(dot)dilger(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Melanie Plageman <melanieplageman(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, Thomas Munro <thomas(dot)munro(at)gmail(dot)com>, Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnaka(at)iki(dot)fi>, Nazir Bilal Yavuz <byavuz81(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Subject: | Re: BitmapHeapScan streaming read user and prelim refactoring |
| Date: | 2024-02-14 16:41:20 |
| Message-ID: | 4184401B-2772-452E-BC02-60A64EC1FD8D@enterprisedb.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
> On Feb 14, 2024, at 6:47 AM, Melanie Plageman <melanieplageman(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>
> Just curious, did your table AM implement
> table_scan_bitmap_next_block() and table_scan_bitmap_next_tuple(),
> and, if so, did you use the TBMIterateResult? Since it is not used in
> BitmapHeapNext() in my version, table AMs would have to change how
> they use TBMIterateResults anyway. But I assume they could add it to a
> table AM specific scan descriptor if they want access to a
> TBMIterateResult of their own making in both
> table_san_bitmap_next_block() and next_tuple()?
My table AM does implement those two functions and does use the TBMIterateResult *tbmres argument, yes. I would deal with the issue in very much the same way that your patches modify heapam. I don't really have any additional comments about that.
—
Mark Dilger
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | David Christensen | 2024-02-14 16:46:02 | Re: Constant Splitting/Refactoring |
| Previous Message | Melanie Plageman | 2024-02-14 16:40:18 | Re: index prefetching |