Re: Performance (was: The New Slashdot Setup (includes MySql server))

> "Michael A. Olson" <mao(at)sleepycat(dot)com> writes:
> > Third, we had to abstract a lot of the hard-coded table scans in
> > the bowels of the system to call a routine that checked for the
> > existence of an index on the system table, and used it.
>
> The way that we've been approaching this is by switching from hard-coded
> sequential scans (heap_getnext() calls) to hard-coded indexscans
> (index_getnext() calls) at places where performance dictates it.
>
> An advantage of doing it that way is that you don't have the
> bootstrapping/circularity problems that Mike describes; the code doesn't
> need to consult pg_index to know whether there is an index to use, it
> just has the necessary info hard-coded in. For the same reason it's
> very quick.

I like hard-coded. There aren't many of them, last time I looked.
Maybe 5-10 that need index scan. The rest are already done using the
catalog cache.

--
Bruce Momjian | http://www.op.net/~candle
pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us | (610) 853-3000
+ If your life is a hard drive, | 830 Blythe Avenue
+ Christ can be your backup. | Drexel Hill, Pennsylvania 19026