| From: | "Jim C(dot) Nasby" <jnasby(at)pervasive(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Jeremy Drake <pgsql(at)jdrake(dot)com> |
| Cc: | David Scott <davids(at)apptechsys(dot)com>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: No heap lookups on index |
| Date: | 2006-01-19 22:58:35 |
| Message-ID: | 20060119225835.GM78403@pervasive.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-general pgsql-hackers |
On Thu, Jan 19, 2006 at 02:50:39PM -0800, Jeremy Drake wrote:
> On Thu, 19 Jan 2006, Jim C. Nasby wrote:
>
> > Do you still have that patch that folks could look at? ISTM that this
> > technique would be rather dependant on your actual workload, and as such
> > could result in a big win for certain types of queries.
...
> Feel free to do whatever with this, it's pretty fast for tables where
> seeks to validate tuples would hurt, but you do get back dead things...
How'd you then weed out the dead tuples?
Basically, numbers talk. If there were convincing numbers for something
that wasn't a corner-case that showed a marked improvement then there'd
be much more interest in getting this into the backend in some fashion.
--
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 | Rich Shepard | 2006-01-19 22:59:06 | Re: Upgrade Problem: 7.4.3 -> 8.1.2 |
| Previous Message | Scott Marlowe | 2006-01-19 22:53:14 | Re: A tale of two similar databases |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Simon Riggs | 2006-01-19 23:04:05 | Re: un-vacuum? |
| Previous Message | Jim C. Nasby | 2006-01-19 22:54:21 | Re: un-vacuum? |