From: | Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
Cc: | Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: [RFC] Minmax indexes |
Date: | 2013-07-19 16:43:22 |
Message-ID: | 51E96CAA.6070100@agliodbs.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 07/18/2013 10:39 PM, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> To scan the index, we first obtain the TID of index tuple for page 0. If
> this returns a valid TID, we read that tuple to determine the min/max bounds
> for this page range. If it returns invalid, then the range is unsummarized,
> and the scan must return the whole range as needing scan. After this
> index entry has been processed, we obtain the TID of the index tuple for
> page 0+pagesPerRange (currently this is a compile-time constant, but
> there's no reason this cannot be a per-index property). Continue adding
> pagesPerRange until we reach the end of the heap.
Conceptually, this sounds like a good initial solution to the update
problem.
I still think we could do incremental updates to the minmax indexes per
the idea I discussed, but that could be a later version.
--
Josh Berkus
PostgreSQL Experts Inc.
http://pgexperts.com
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Robert Haas | 2013-07-19 16:46:06 | Re: getting rid of SnapshotNow |
Previous Message | Jeff Janes | 2013-07-19 16:39:19 | Re: AGG_PLAIN thinks sorts are free |