Re: Performance Improvement for Unique Indexes

From: Gokulakannan Somasundaram <gokul007(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: pgsql-hackers list <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Performance Improvement for Unique Indexes
Date: 2010-03-24 15:34:46
Message-ID: 9362e74e1003240834h531cefd8m52dd70b24877f359@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

> it seems fairly unlikely to me that this would be useful enough to
> justify using up a precious hint bit. The applicability of the hint
> is very short-term --- as soon as the tuple is dead to all transactions,
> it can be marked with the existing LP_DEAD hint bit. And if it's only
> useful for uniqueness checks, as seems to be the case, that's another
> big restriction on the value.
>
> Right. It is of little value.

Gokul.

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2010-03-24 15:39:14 last_statrequest is in the future
Previous Message Tom Lane 2010-03-24 14:46:20 Re: WIP: preloading of ispell dictionary