| From: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)alvh(dot)no-ip(dot)org> |
|---|---|
| To: | Konstantin Knizhnik <k(dot)knizhnik(at)postgrespro(dot)ru> |
| Cc: | Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net>, Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com>, Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Christoph Berg <myon(at)debian(dot)org>, Thomas Munro <thomas(dot)munro(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: [HACKERS] Surjective functional indexes |
| Date: | 2018-03-23 15:45:34 |
| Message-ID: | 20180323154534.4c3s3kdjil6hktyp@alvherre.pgsql |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Konstantin Knizhnik wrote:
> rd_projidx is not a list, it is Bitmapset. It is just one of many bitmap
> sets in RelationData:
Yes, but the other bitmapsets are of AttrNumber of the involved column.
They new one is of list_nth() counters for items in the index list.
That seems weird and it scares me -- do we use that coding pattern
elsewhere? Maybe use an array of OIDs instead?
--
Álvaro Herrera https://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Simon Riggs | 2018-03-23 15:54:00 | Re: [HACKERS] Surjective functional indexes |
| Previous Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2018-03-23 15:40:37 | Re: Do I understand commit timestamps correctly? |