From: | Doug McNaught <doug(at)mcnaught(dot)org> |
---|---|
To: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)dcc(dot)uchile(dot)cl> |
Cc: | Tiago Wright <tiagowright(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Indexed views? |
Date: | 2004-09-08 02:21:22 |
Message-ID: | 87ekldec0t.fsf@asmodeus.mcnaught.org |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)dcc(dot)uchile(dot)cl> writes:
> On Tue, Sep 07, 2004 at 07:58:56PM -0400, Doug McNaught wrote:
>> Hard to say how it would work, but come up with a good design and
>> quality patch and it'll probably go in. :)
>
> Probably not. This has been discussed before; what's needed is that the
> visibility information is stored also in the index. This is hard and
> inefficient to do, because it requires updating the index at the same
> time that the heap is updated. Which is a bad proposition as soon as
> there is more than one index, and when there is a seqscan involved (i.e.
> no index), because it means a lot of extra I/O.
Yeah, hence the smiley.
-Doug
--
Let us cross over the river, and rest under the shade of the trees.
--T. J. Jackson, 1863
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2004-09-08 02:36:43 | Re: Indexed views? |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2004-09-08 02:12:17 | Re: Making AFTER triggers act properly in PL functions |