From: | "Christopher Kings-Lynne" <chriskl(at)familyhealth(dot)com(dot)au> |
---|---|
To: | "Gavin Sherry" <swm(at)linuxworld(dot)com(dot)au>, "Barry Lind" <barry(at)xythos(dot)com> |
Cc: | <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Suggestion for optimization |
Date: | 2002-04-08 02:05:08 |
Message-ID: | GNELIHDDFBOCMGBFGEFOOEABCCAA.chriskl@familyhealth.com.au |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
> > Af far as I know Oracle doesn't have any short cut (along the lines of
> > what is being discussed in this thread) for this operation. However
> > Oracle is more efficient in providing the answer than postgres
> currently
> > is. While postgres needs to perform a full scan on the table, Oracle
> > will only need to perform a full index scan on the primary key if one
> > exists. Since the index will likely have much less data than the full
>
> Under Postgres, a full index scan is generally more expensive than a full
> table scan since indices, particularly btree, carry a large amount of meta
> data and theefore consume more pages.
Don't forget that Postgres also doesn't store tids in the index, so must
always check with the main table that a row is visible in current
transaction.
Chris
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Christopher Kings-Lynne | 2002-04-08 02:17:59 | Re: RFC: Restructuring pg_aggregate |
Previous Message | Peter Eisentraut | 2002-04-08 01:13:17 | Re: Question on ident authorization |