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
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? |
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) |