Re: the big picture for index-only scans

Greg Stark wrote:
> On a separate note though, Simon, I don't know what you mean by "we
> normally start with a problem". It's an free software project and
> people are free to work on whatever interests them whether that's
> because it solves a problem they have, helps a client who's paying
> them, or just because it's of academic interest to them. We don't
> always take their patches if they aren't of general interest but
> people propose all kinds of crazy experimental ideas all the time.

I am confused by Simon's questions too.

Simon seems to regularly argue for adding features late in the
development cycle and backpatch things no one else thinks should be
backpatched, but he wants more research that index-only scans are going
to improve things before it is implemented? The first is aggressive
development, the second is very conservative development --- they don't
match, so I now wonder what the motivation is since it isn't consistent.

Isn't speeding up COUNT(*) a sufficient case because it will not have to
touch the heap in many cases? No one is going to apply this patch until
we fully understand the performance implications, just like every other
patch. No one has suggested otherwise.

It is helpful to have people critically review all our work, but
disagreeing just for the sake of causing discussion isn't helpful, and I
have seen a lot of these discussions lately. I am sensing a pattern. :-(

--
Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> http://momjian.us
EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com

+ It's impossible for everything to be true. +