RE: Performance (was: The New Slashdot Setup (includes MySql server))

From: "Hiroshi Inoue" <Inoue(at)tpf(dot)co(dot)jp>
To: "Tom Lane" <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: RE: Performance (was: The New Slashdot Setup (includes MySql server))
Date: 2000-05-20 05:25:23
Message-ID: NDBBIJLOILGIKBGDINDFGEEHCFAA.Inoue@tpf.co.jp
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-general pgsql-hackers

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Tom Lane [mailto:tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us]
>
> I wrote:
> > We should just need a switching layer in front of heap_beginscan/
> > index_beginscan and heap_getnext/index_getnext...)
>
> After refreshing my memory of how these are used, it seems that
> we'd have to change the API of either the heap or index scan routines
> in order to unify them like that. Might be worth doing to maintain
> code cleanliness, though. The places Hiroshi has fixed to support
> both index and seq scan look really ugly to my eyes ...
>

Yes,it's ugly unfortunately. So I had hesitated to commit it for
pretty long. There's a trial of unification in my trial implementation
of ALTER TABLE DROP COLUMN in command.c.

Regards.

Hiroshi Inoue
Inoue(at)tpf(dot)co(dot)jp

In response to

Browse pgsql-general by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Hiroshi Inoue 2000-05-20 05:25:26 RE: Performance (was: The New Slashdot Setup (includes MySql server))
Previous Message Michael A. Mayo 2000-05-20 05:08:13 Columns in pg_shadow?

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Hiroshi Inoue 2000-05-20 05:25:26 RE: Performance (was: The New Slashdot Setup (includes MySql server))
Previous Message Tom Lane 2000-05-20 05:20:53 Re: Raw devices (was Re: Berkeley DB license)