From: | Dmitry Dolgov <9erthalion6(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)bowt(dot)ie>, Jesper Pedersen <jesper(dot)pedersen(at)redhat(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: MDAM techniques and Index Skip Scan patch |
Date: | 2022-03-23 20:47:47 |
Message-ID: | 20220323204747.gzlpcz72whh66pil@erthalion.local |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
> On Tue, Mar 22, 2022 at 04:55:49PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)bowt(dot)ie> writes:
> > Like many difficult patches, the skip scan patch is not so much
> > troubled by problems with the implementation as it is troubled by
> > *ambiguity* about the design. Particularly concerning how skip scan
> > meshes with existing designs, as well as future designs --
> > particularly designs for other MDAM techniques. I've started this
> > thread to have a big picture conversation about how to think about
> > these things.
>
> Peter asked me off-list to spend some time thinking about the overall
> direction we ought to be pursuing here. I have done that, and here
> are a few modest suggestions.
Thanks. To make sure I understand your proposal better, I have a couple
of questions:
> In short: I would throw out just about all the planner infrastructure
> that's been proposed so far. It looks bulky, expensive, and
> drastically undercommented, and I don't think it's buying us anything
> of commensurate value.
Broadly speaking planner related changes proposed in the patch so far
are: UniqueKey, taken from the neighbour thread about select distinct;
list of uniquekeys to actually pass information about the specified
loose scan prefix into nbtree; some verification logic to prevent
applying skipping when it's not supported. I can imagine taking out
UniqueKeys and passing loose scan prefix in some other form (the other
parts seems to be essential) -- is that what you mean?
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Peter Eisentraut | 2022-03-23 20:48:48 | Re: [PATCH] Remove workarounds to format [u]int64's |
Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2022-03-23 20:41:33 | Re: Removing more vacuumlazy.c special cases, relfrozenxid optimizations |