From: | Gregory Stark <stark(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | "Heikki Linnakangas" <heikki(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> |
Cc: | "Karl Schnaitter" <karlsch(at)soe(dot)ucsc(dot)edu>, <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: TODO item: Allow data to be pulled directly from indexes |
Date: | 2008-06-30 11:07:04 |
Message-ID: | 87lk0n9o6f.fsf@oxford.xeocode.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
"Heikki Linnakangas" <heikki(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> writes:
> I'm not sure I have enough time to get all that done for 8.4, it's looking bad
> at the moment, so help would be much appreciated. If you don't agree with
> taking the visibility map approach, I would suggest working on the indexam API
> changes first, to allow returning index tuples from an index. I believe that
> part is the same regardless of how we check the visibility.
That part is the elephant in the room in all these discussions.
I wonder if we want to have a new plan node for the heap accesses so they can
be postponed up above a join or other quals. Even for tuples which are of
questionable visibility we ought to be able to check cheap quals first before
checking visibility (though we might need a new function property to indicate
it's safe to call extra times on data which doesn't really exist -- immutable
doesn't mean it might not throw errors, for example).
--
Gregory Stark
EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com
Ask me about EnterpriseDB's PostGIS support!
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Stephen R. van den Berg | 2008-06-30 11:17:42 | Processing database query-results piecemeal |
Previous Message | Richard Huxton | 2008-06-30 08:38:08 | Re: Does anything dump per-database config settings? (was Re: ALTER DATABASE vs pg_dump) |