Re: COUNT(*) and index-only scans

From: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Greg Stark <stark(at)mit(dot)edu>
Cc: Thom Brown <thom(at)linux(dot)com>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Jeff Davis <pgsql(at)j-davis(dot)com>, Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>, Kevin Grittner <Kevin(dot)Grittner(at)wicourts(dot)gov>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: COUNT(*) and index-only scans
Date: 2011-12-14 14:00:12
Message-ID: CA+TgmoaWLFXGk-sJsdsJo-YAh4PPGYopH=ah+uhShjVVBeO20g@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Wed, Dec 14, 2011 at 6:58 AM, Greg Stark <stark(at)mit(dot)edu> wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 21, 2011 at 6:43 PM, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>> In buffer fill mode, we scan the index and add matching tuples and
>> their CTIDs to the buffer.  When the buffer is full or the index AM
>> reports that there are no more tuples in the scan, we switch to buffer
>> drain mode.
>
> Instead you could do the two phases concurrently the way tuplesort
> implements the tapesort from Knuth. You keep a heap of ctids with an
> epoch. You fill the heap then you return the first one. Whenever you
> return one you read the next one and add it to the heap. If it falls
> before the last returned value you insert it with the next epoch but
> if it falls afterwards you can insert it into the heap in its correct
> position.

Yeah, that's pretty much what I was imagining, although my explanation
of it was slightly muddled.

--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Shigeru Hanada 2011-12-14 14:02:28 Re: pgsql_fdw, FDW for PostgreSQL server
Previous Message Greg Smith 2011-12-14 13:59:47 Re: Patch to allow users to kill their own queries