| From: | Greg Stark <stark(at)mit(dot)edu> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: index-only scans |
| Date: | 2011-10-10 02:19:30 |
| Message-ID: | CAM-w4HO-GmeqBDnvof0RH1SESNx+whHm8AknsFJ=x0K2c41vUA@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Mon, Oct 10, 2011 at 2:47 AM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> The need for this additional node list field also sways me in a
> direction that I'd previously been on the fence about, namely that
> I think index-only scans need to be their own independent plan node type
> instead of sharing a node type with regular indexscans
At a superficial PR level it'll go over quite well to have a special
plan node be visible in the explain output. People will love to see
Fast Index Scan or Covering Index Scan or whatever you call it in
their plans.
--
greg
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Alex Goncharov | 2011-10-10 02:21:39 | What is known about PostgreSQL HP-UX support? |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2011-10-10 01:47:08 | Re: index-only scans |