| From: | Lincoln Yeoh <lyeoh(at)pop(dot)jaring(dot)my> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | "Hackers List" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Search from newer tuples first, vs older tuples first? |
| Date: | 2002-05-02 08:52:03 |
| Message-ID: | 5.1.0.14.1.20020502154120.035f25c0@192.228.128.13 |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
At 12:49 AM 5/2/02 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
>Lincoln Yeoh <lyeoh(at)pop(dot)jaring(dot)my> writes:
> > But does Postgresql visit the older tuples first moving to the newer ones,
> > or the newer ones first?
>
>It's going to visit them *all*. Reordering won't improve the
>performance.
Ack! I thought it went through them till the first valid tuple and was just
going the wrong way.
>FWIW I think that with the present implementation of btree, the newer
>tuples actually will be visited first --- when inserting a duplicate
>key, the new entry will be inserted to the left of the equal key(s)
>already present. But it doesn't matter. The only way to speed this
>up is to eliminate some of the visitings, which requires keeping more
>info in the index than we presently do.
OK I'm starting to get it :). Will the index behaviour be changed soon?
Hmm, then what are the row tuple forward links for? Why forward?
Regards,
Link.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Jean-Michel POURE | 2002-05-02 09:20:58 | Re: PostgreSQL mission statement? |
| Previous Message | Lincoln Yeoh | 2002-05-02 08:51:15 | Re: a vulnerability in PostgreSQL |