| From: | "Jim C(dot) Nasby" <jnasby(at)pervasive(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | "Jonah H(dot) Harris" <jonah(dot)harris(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, David Scott <davids(at)apptechsys(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: No heap lookups on index |
| Date: | 2006-01-18 22:38:53 |
| Message-ID: | 20060118223853.GW17896@pervasive.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-general pgsql-hackers |
On Wed, Jan 18, 2006 at 04:02:45PM -0500, Jonah H. Harris wrote:
> David,
>
> You can find some of this discussion in "Much Ado About COUNT(*)". Related
> to that discussion, I had written a patch which added visibility information
> to the indexes.
>
> If you're interested in the patch and/or consulting, contact me offline.
Does the patch change all indexes across the board? Do you have any
performance numbers?
I suspect that in some situations storing visibility info in the index
would be a big win; if that's the case it would be very good if there
was an option that allowed it. Perhaps this could be done using a
different index access method...
--
Jim C. Nasby, Sr. Engineering Consultant jnasby(at)pervasive(dot)com
Pervasive Software http://pervasive.com work: 512-231-6117
vcard: http://jim.nasby.net/pervasive.vcf cell: 512-569-9461
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | boff | 2006-01-18 22:40:02 | Problem with Timestamp |
| Previous Message | Jim C. Nasby | 2006-01-18 22:37:03 | Re: No heap lookups on index |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Jim Nasby | 2006-01-18 22:47:11 | FW: Surrogate keys (Was: enums) |
| Previous Message | Jim C. Nasby | 2006-01-18 22:37:03 | Re: No heap lookups on index |