| From: | Jeff Davis <pgsql(at)j-davis(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tomas Vondra <tomas(dot)vondra(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)bowt(dot)ie> |
| Cc: | James Coleman <jtc331(at)gmail(dot)com>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Maxim Ivanov <hi(at)yamlcoder(dot)me>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, Konstantin Knizhnik <knizhnik(at)garret(dot)ru> |
| Subject: | Re: Use of additional index columns in rows filtering |
| Date: | 2023-07-24 17:36:25 |
| Message-ID: | 4ed17d03bee6fffdab865a7161c5a9a6947f4304.camel@j-davis.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Sun, 2023-07-23 at 14:04 +0200, Tomas Vondra wrote:
> But I'm getting a bit lost regarding what's the proposed costing
> strategy. It's hard to follow threads spanning days, with various
> other
> distractions, etc.
I'm getting a bit lost in this discussion as well -- for the purposes
of this feature, we only need to know whether to push down a clause as
an Index Filter or not, right?
Could we start out conservatively and push down as an Index Filter
unless there is some other clause ahead of it that can't be pushed
down? That would allow users to have some control by writing clauses in
the desired order or wrapping them in functions with a declared cost.
Regards,
Jeff Davis
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2023-07-24 17:43:56 | Re: psql not responding to SIGINT upon db reconnection |
| Previous Message | Pierre Ducroquet | 2023-07-24 17:27:36 | Re: Inefficiency in parallel pg_restore with many tables |