Re: Get more from indices.

From: "Etsuro Fujita" <fujita(dot)etsuro(at)lab(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp>
To: "'Etsuro Fujita'" <fujita(dot)etsuro(at)lab(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp>, "'Kyotaro HORIGUCHI'" <horiguchi(dot)kyotaro(at)lab(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp>
Cc: <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>
Subject: Re: Get more from indices.
Date: 2013-12-05 12:05:10
Message-ID: 00b401cef1b2$3f328030$bd978090$@etsuro@lab.ntt.co.jp
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

I wrote:
> Kyotaro HORIGUCHI wrote:
> > Another is, you changed pathkeys expantion to be all-or-nothing
decision.
> > While this change should simplify the code slightly, it also dismisses
> > the oppotunity for partially-extended pathkeys. Could you let me know
> > the
> reason
> > why you did so.

> At first I thought the partially-extended pathkey list that is made from
> query_pathkeys, as you proposed in the original versions of the patch.
But
> I've started to doubt whether it's worth doing that because I think the
> partially-extended pathkey list is merely one example while the original
> pathkey list can be partially-extended in different ways, ie, ISTM the
> partially-extended pathkey list doesn't necessarily have the optimality
> in anything significant. We might be able to partially-extend the
original
> pathkey list optimally in something significant, but that seems useless
> complexity to me. So, I modified the patch to do the all-or-nothing
> decision.

Here I mean the optimality for use in merge joins.

Thanks,

Best regards,
Etsuro Fujita

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message MauMau 2013-12-05 12:07:30 Re: [bug fix] "pg_ctl stop" times out when it should respond quickly
Previous Message Etsuro Fujita 2013-12-05 11:48:19 Re: Get more from indices.