| From: | Martijn van Oosterhout <kleptog(at)svana(dot)org> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | "Jim C(dot) Nasby" <jnasby(at)pervasive(dot)com>, Rodrigo Hjort <rodrigo(dot)hjort(at)gmail(dot)com>, Andrew Sullivan <ajs(at)crankycanuck(dot)ca>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: LIKE, leading percent, bind parameters and indexes |
| Date: | 2006-05-29 06:52:13 |
| Message-ID: | 20060529065212.GA14432@svana.org |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Sat, May 27, 2006 at 11:52:40AM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Martijn van Oosterhout <kleptog(at)svana(dot)org> writes:
> > How about the suggestion of using a sequential index scan like the
> > recent changes to VACUUM in the case that there are no regular index
> > quals?
>
> Nonstarter (hint: the solution we found for VACUUM assumes there can
> be only one).
Bummer, I was envisioning allowing index AMs to have another access
method, the unordered sequential scan. Just like we consider a random
access of a real table to be more expensive than a seq scan, and index
scan that seeks a lot would be more expensive that a sequential scan.
So if you know you're going to scan most of an index, scanning
sequentially would be cheaper...
Ah well,
Have a nice day,
--
Martijn van Oosterhout <kleptog(at)svana(dot)org> http://svana.org/kleptog/
> From each according to his ability. To each according to his ability to litigate.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | James William Pye | 2006-05-29 07:00:57 | Re: pg_proc probin misuse |
| Previous Message | Thomas Hallgren | 2006-05-29 06:01:07 | Re: Inefficient bytea escaping? |