Re: PATCH: index-only scans with partial indexes

From: Kyotaro HORIGUCHI <horiguchi(dot)kyotaro(at)lab(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp>
To: tomas(dot)vondra(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com
Cc: kgrittn(at)ymail(dot)com, simon(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: PATCH: index-only scans with partial indexes
Date: 2015-09-18 01:46:10
Message-ID: 20150918.104610.199079215.horiguchi.kyotaro@lab.ntt.co.jp
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Hello,

At Thu, 17 Sep 2015 17:40:27 +0200, Tomas Vondra <tomas(dot)vondra(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> wrote in <55FADEEB(dot)4000907(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>
> Yes, this seems sane. I've been poking at this a bit too, and I came
> to the same plan in general, except that I think it's better to build
> list of clauses that are *not* implied by the index, because that's
> what we need both in cost_index and check_index_only.

I intended to isolate IndexOptInfo from belonging RelOptInfo but
the exclusion list also bonds them tightly, and one IndexOptInfo
belongs to only one RelOptInfo so no need to isolate. So
not-implied-restrictclauses in IndexOptInfo would be preferable.

> It also seems to me that this change (arguably a bug fix) should
> pretty much make the original patch irrelevant, because
> check_index_only can simply walk over the new list.

Yeah. This seems to be a bug irrelevant to your index-only-scan
ptch.

regards,

--
Kyotaro Horiguchi
NTT Open Source Software Center

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Jan Wieck 2015-09-18 02:01:45 Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Fix an O(N^2) problem in foreign key references.
Previous Message Kouhei Kaigai 2015-09-18 01:01:22 Re: numbering plan nodes