Re: Poor performance on seq scan

From: Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>
To: alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com, Guillaume Cottenceau <gc(at)mnc(dot)ch>, pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Poor performance on seq scan
Date: 2006-09-12 13:45:06
Message-ID: 4506B9E2.9050608@enterprisedb.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-performance

Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> Are you saying that an indexscan "Filter" only acts after getting the
> heap tuple? If that's the case, then there's room for optimization
> here, namely if the affected column is part of the index key, then we
> could do the filtering before fetching the heap tuple.

That's right. Yes, there's definitely room for optimization. In general,
it seems we should detach the index scan and heap fetch more. Perhaps
make them two different nodes, like the bitmap index scan and bitmap
heap scan. It would allow us to do the above. It's also going to be
necessary if we ever get to implement index-only scans.

--
Heikki Linnakangas
EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com

In response to

Browse pgsql-performance by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Scott Marlowe 2006-09-12 14:27:11 Re: Performance problem with Sarge compared with Woody
Previous Message Alvaro Herrera 2006-09-12 13:32:55 Re: Poor performance on seq scan