From: | Haribabu Kommi <kommi(dot)haribabu(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Rajeev rastogi <rajeev(dot)rastogi(at)huawei(dot)com> |
Cc: | Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnakangas(at)vmware(dot)com>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, PostgreSQL mailing lists <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Index scan optimization |
Date: | 2014-10-30 08:43:49 |
Message-ID: | CAJrrPGcsEhNQYV833=mH=un2CaTtcapuDq2uAm14dY2BJbFyXg@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Mon, Oct 27, 2014 at 10:38 PM, Rajeev rastogi
<rajeev(dot)rastogi(at)huawei(dot)com> wrote:
> On 26 October 2014 10:42, Haribabu Kommi wrote:
>> I have a question regarding setting of key flags matched. Only the
>> first key was set as matched even if we have multiple index conditions.
>> Is there any reason behind that?
>
> Actually the keysCount can be more than one only if the key strategy is BTEqualStrategyNumber (i.e. = condition)
> But our optimization is only for the '>' or '>=' condition only. So adding code to set flag for all keys is of no use.
>
> Let me know if I am missing anything here?
Thanks. I understood the point.
>> If any volatile function is present in the index condition, the index
>> scan itself is not choosen, Is there any need of handling the same
>> similar to NULLS?
>
> Do you mean to say that whether we should add any special handling for volatile function?
> If yes then as you said since index scan itself is not selected for such functions, then
> I feel We don’t need to add anything for that.
I also have the same opinion. I marked the patch as ready for committer.
Regards,
Hari Babu
Fujitsu Australia
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Simon Riggs | 2014-10-30 08:58:05 | Re: group locking: incomplete patch, just for discussion |
Previous Message | Szymon Guz | 2014-10-30 08:30:07 | Re: printing table in asciidoc with psql |