| From: | Greg Stark <stark(at)mit(dot)edu> |
|---|---|
| To: | Jim Nasby <jim(at)nasby(dot)net> |
| Cc: | Paul Norman <penorman(at)mac(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Using indexes for partial index builds |
| Date: | 2013-03-11 19:13:10 |
| Message-ID: | CAM-w4HPuS-23hQK1UwWmHPDaFpUYO_ZHoeixjP3a9gg_R7rTgw@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Thu, Mar 7, 2013 at 12:51 AM, Jim Nasby <jim(at)nasby(dot)net> wrote:
> Something worth considering on this... I suspect it's possible to use an
> index-only scan to do this, regardless of whether the heap page is all
> visible. The reason is that the newly created index would just use the same
> access methodology as the original index, so any dead rows would be ignored.
This is actually quite clever. I wonder how many other cases can use
similar logic.
> We'd almost certainly need to block vacuums during the build however.
> Obviously not an issue for regular index builds, but it would be for
> concurrent ones.
Concurrent index builds block vacuums already.
--
greg
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Greg Stark | 2013-03-11 19:19:32 | Re: Proposal for Allow postgresql.conf values to be changed via SQL [review] |
| Previous Message | Thom Brown | 2013-03-11 19:07:14 | Re: [v9.3] writable foreign tables |