Re: [HACKERS] No heap lookups on index

From: Glen Parker <glenebob(at)nwlink(dot)com>
To: Postgres General <pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] No heap lookups on index
Date: 2006-01-18 23:11:54
Message-ID: 43CECB3A.4040206@nwlink.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-general pgsql-hackers

Tom Lane wrote:
> David Scott <davids(at)apptechsys(dot)com> writes:
>
>> Is the additional overhead of keeping full tuple visibility
>>information inside of the index so odious to the Postgres community as
>>to prevent a patch with this solution from being applied back to the
>>head?
>
> This has been discussed and rejected before (multiple times). If you
> want it considered you'll have to present stronger arguments than have
> so far been made. The current consensus is that the probability of a
> net performance win is not good enough to justify the large amount of
> development effort that would be required.

What ever happened to grouped heap reads, i.e. building a list of tuples
from the index, sorting in heap order, then reading the heap in a batch?
The last I remember (maybe two years ago), it was being discussed but
no design decisions had been made. Is that what you're talking about?

-Glen

In response to

Browse pgsql-general by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2006-01-18 23:27:31 Re: No heap lookups on index
Previous Message boff 2006-01-18 22:40:02 Problem with Timestamp

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Jim C. Nasby 2006-01-18 23:22:48 Re: FW: Surrogate keys (Was: enums)
Previous Message Jim Nasby 2006-01-18 22:47:11 FW: Surrogate keys (Was: enums)