From: | Jesper Pedersen <jesper(dot)pedersen(at)redhat(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Pavel Stehule <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org, Thomas Munro <munro(at)ip9(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Index Skip Scan |
Date: | 2018-10-09 13:58:09 |
Message-ID: | b0949c46-ec77-4b82-48fe-916cd5c12fd1@redhat.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Hi Pavel,
On 10/9/18 9:42 AM, Pavel Stehule wrote:
> I tested last patch and I have some notes:
>
> 1.
>
> postgres=# explain select distinct a10000 from foo;
> +-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------+
> | QUERY PLAN |
> +-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------+
> | Unique (cost=0.43..4367.56 rows=9983 width=4) |
> | -> Index Skip Scan using foo_a10000_idx on foo (cost=0.43..4342.60 rows=9983 width=4) |
> +-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------+
> (2 rows)
>
> In this case Unique node is useless and can be removed
>
> 2. Can be nice COUNT(DISTINCT support) similarly like MIN, MAX suppport
>
> 3. Once time patched postgres crashed, but I am not able to reproduce it.
>
Please, send that query through if you can replicate it. The patch
currently passes an assert'ed check-world, so your query clearly
triggered something that isn't covered yet.
> Looks like very interesting patch, and important for some BI platforms
>
Thanks for your review !
Best regards,
Jesper
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Peter Eisentraut | 2018-10-09 13:58:18 | Re: Proposal for Signal Detection Refactoring |
Previous Message | Pavel Stehule | 2018-10-09 13:42:24 | Re: Index Skip Scan |