From: | Danny Shemesh <dany74q(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | "David G(dot) Johnston" <david(dot)g(dot)johnston(at)gmail(dot)com>, "pgsql-general(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-general(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Index only scans for expressional indices when querying for the expression |
Date: | 2022-08-04 14:03:22 |
Message-ID: | CAFZC=QoF9s7ux8XmcxwMYre+B7sq4Am-8xEiqgjfgztBftDg=Q@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-general |
A-ha, interesting !
I think we have some specific use cases where it'd be worth the overhead,
I'd need to measure it, though;
Do you think there'd be room to accept a contribution for such
functionality with a disabled-by-default pg setting,
or are you skeptical it would ever be worth the trade-off ?
Thanks again,
Danny
On Thu, Aug 4, 2022 at 4:38 PM Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> Danny Shemesh <dany74q(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> > That is of course correct, but what I mean is that, I think that if one
> > would explicitly query f(x), and never for x directly, it would've been
> > theoretically possible to say that the index is covering for every f(x),
> > wouldn't it ?
>
> Theoretically, yeah, but we don't support that: an index-only scan
> will only be considered if x itself is available from the index.
> There are a couple of reasons for that, but the main one is that
> detecting whether an index matches the query would be far more expensive
> if it had to consider expression subtrees not just the base Vars.
>
> regards, tom lane
>
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2022-08-04 14:17:11 | Re: Index only scans for expressional indices when querying for the expression |
Previous Message | hubert depesz lubaczewski | 2022-08-04 13:56:53 | Re: Allow user to connect to replicas only |