| From: | "Christopher Kings-Lynne" <chriskl(at)familyhealth(dot)com(dot)au> |
|---|---|
| To: | "Stephan Szabo" <sszabo(at)megazone(dot)bigpanda(dot)com>, "Tom Lane" <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | "Dani Oderbolz" <oderbolz(at)ecologic(dot)de>, <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: [SQL] "SELECT IN" Still Broken in 7.4b |
| Date: | 2003-08-22 01:40:45 |
| Message-ID: | 00f201c3684e$6b943a40$2800a8c0@mars |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers pgsql-sql |
> I'm toying with the notion of ripping out that logic and instead
> building an in-memory hashtable of already-returned TIDs. This could
> theoretically run out of memory if the multiple indexscan returns enough
> tuples, but I think in practice that wouldn't happen because the planner
> wouldn't choose an indexscan when very large numbers of tuples are being
> selected.
>
> Comments?
Sounds kind of like a bitmap index almost..
Chris
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Hornyak Laszlo | 2003-08-22 06:30:24 | Re: [GENERAL] Need concrete "Why Postgres not MySQL" |
| Previous Message | Ron Johnson | 2003-08-22 00:10:41 | Re: [HACKERS] [pgsql-advocacy] Need concrete "Why |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | MichaelHoeller | 2003-08-22 06:25:51 | date calculation |
| Previous Message | Roberto Mello | 2003-08-22 01:21:30 | Re: logging messages from inside pgPLSQL routine? |