| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)bowt(dot)ie> |
| Cc: | pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Inefficient nbtree behavior with row-comparison quals |
| Date: | 2024-05-11 21:05:18 |
| Message-ID: | 90788.1715461518@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)bowt(dot)ie> writes:
> On Sat, May 11, 2024 at 4:21 PM Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
>>> There's another problem along these lines, that seems at least as bad:
>>> queries involving contradictory >= and <= quals aren't recognized as
>>> contradictory during preprocessing. There's no reason why
>>> _bt_preprocessing_keys couldn't detect that case; it just doesn't
>>> right now.
>> Ugh, how'd we miss that? I can take a look at this, unless you're
>> on it already.
> My draft skip scan/MDAM patch already deals with this in passing. So
> you could say that I was already working on this. But I'm not sure
> that I would actually say so myself; what I'm doing is tied to far
> more complicated work.
Hmm, I'm generally in favor of a lot of small patches rather than one
enormously complex one. Isn't this point something that could be
broken out?
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Peter Geoghegan | 2024-05-11 21:30:45 | Re: Inefficient nbtree behavior with row-comparison quals |
| Previous Message | Peter Geoghegan | 2024-05-11 20:45:57 | Re: Inefficient nbtree behavior with row-comparison quals |