| From: | Floris Van Nee <florisvannee(at)Optiver(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Dmitry Dolgov <9erthalion6(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)bowt(dot)ie>, Jesper Pedersen <jesper(dot)pedersen(at)redhat(dot)com>, David Rowley <david(dot)rowley(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Tomas Vondra <tomas(dot)vondra(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Kyotaro Horiguchi <horikyota(dot)ntt(at)gmail(dot)com>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, "Thomas Munro" <thomas(dot)munro(at)gmail(dot)com>, James Coleman <jtc331(at)gmail(dot)com>, Rafia Sabih <rafia(dot)pghackers(at)gmail(dot)com>, Jeff Janes <jeff(dot)janes(at)gmail(dot)com>, "Bhushan Uparkar" <bhushan(dot)uparkar(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Alexander Korotkov <a(dot)korotkov(at)postgrespro(dot)ru> |
| Subject: | RE: Index Skip Scan |
| Date: | 2020-02-04 20:34:09 |
| Message-ID: | 5be025f30d8e45cda167c58b5d5e72d2@opammb0561.comp.optiver.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
> this point me and Jesper inclined to go with the second option. But maybe
> I'm missing something, are there any other suggestions?
Unfortunately I figured this would need a more invasive fix. I tend to agree that it'd be better to not skip in situations like this. I think it'd make most sense to make any plan for these 'prepare/fetch' queries would not use skip, but rather a materialize node, right?
-Floris
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Robert Haas | 2020-02-04 20:57:55 | Re: [Proposal] Global temporary tables |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2020-02-04 20:24:21 | Re: Clarifying/rationalizing Vars' varno/varattno/varnoold/varoattno |