From: | Glen Parker <glenebob(at)nwlink(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Postgres General <pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: [HACKERS] No heap lookups on index |
Date: | 2006-01-18 23:11:54 |
Message-ID: | 43CECB3A.4040206@nwlink.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-general pgsql-hackers |
Tom Lane wrote:
> David Scott <davids(at)apptechsys(dot)com> writes:
>
>> Is the additional overhead of keeping full tuple visibility
>>information inside of the index so odious to the Postgres community as
>>to prevent a patch with this solution from being applied back to the
>>head?
>
> This has been discussed and rejected before (multiple times). If you
> want it considered you'll have to present stronger arguments than have
> so far been made. The current consensus is that the probability of a
> net performance win is not good enough to justify the large amount of
> development effort that would be required.
What ever happened to grouped heap reads, i.e. building a list of tuples
from the index, sorting in heap order, then reading the heap in a batch?
The last I remember (maybe two years ago), it was being discussed but
no design decisions had been made. Is that what you're talking about?
-Glen
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2006-01-18 23:27:31 | Re: No heap lookups on index |
Previous Message | boff | 2006-01-18 22:40:02 | Problem with Timestamp |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Jim C. Nasby | 2006-01-18 23:22:48 | Re: FW: Surrogate keys (Was: enums) |
Previous Message | Jim Nasby | 2006-01-18 22:47:11 | FW: Surrogate keys (Was: enums) |