| From: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
|---|---|
| To: | Paul Ramsey <pramsey(at)cleverelephant(dot)ca> |
| Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Adam Brightwell <adam(dot)brightwell(at)crunchydata(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org, Peter Geoghegan <peter(dot)geoghegan(at)crunchydata(dot)com>, Joe Conway <joe(at)crunchydata(dot)com> |
| Subject: | Re: Changing SQL Inlining Behaviour (or...?) |
| Date: | 2019-01-21 23:27:24 |
| Message-ID: | 20190121232724.kbca4x5f3gqcu5ei@alap3.anarazel.de |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Hi,
On 2019-01-21 15:21:29 -0800, Paul Ramsey wrote:
> As a practical matter, most of the exact-test functions have a
> preamble that checks the bbox, so in the seqscan case having the
> operator along for the ride isn’t any advantage. In any event, if we
> do have exact tests w/o a lossy preamble, we could add that for v12,
> as this renovation won’t be a small one if we go this direction.
How expensive are the bbox checks in comparison to the exact tests? IOW,
how much of a problem is it to potentially do a bbox check twice?
Greetings,
Andres Freund
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Paul Ramsey | 2019-01-21 23:28:27 | Re: Changing SQL Inlining Behaviour (or...?) |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2019-01-21 23:27:02 | Re: RelationGetIndexAttrBitmap() small deviation between comment and code |