yet another stupid question (index coverage)

From: Alex Pilosov <alex(at)pilosoft(dot)com>
To: pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: yet another stupid question (index coverage)
Date: 2001-05-17 21:21:44
Message-ID: Pine.BSO.4.10.10105171714160.7355-100000@spider.pilosoft.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-general

Postgresql doesn't support index coverage, does it?

Some stuff that really flied on [cough] other database seems very slow.
Explain shows it is using index scan, however, it looks like database is
fetching blocks from all over the disk, when all information necessary is
already in index.

For those unfamiliar with index coverage, it is used to avoid access to
the main table when all necessary information can be found in index
itself. (Example: select count(*) where condition, assume table has
1M rows, only 10k of them will be selected. Assume that page in main table
covers 50 records and page in index covers 500 records. Total pages
accessed without index coverage: ~10k, with coverage: ~20).

Any chance of this feature getting on the wish list? :)

I thought about coding that feature myself, but it seems to be quite
involved: Apparently TupleTableSlot as it is _must_ have all information
from the row...

-alex

Responses

Browse pgsql-general by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Jeff Patterson 2001-05-17 21:24:22 RE: PL/Perl in 7.1.1
Previous Message Daniel Wickstrom 2001-05-17 20:11:56 Re: outer join fails with error - solaris only