From: | Andrei Lepikhov <lepihov(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | David Rowley <dgrowleyml(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | Jean-Christophe BOGGIO <postgresql(at)thefreecat(dot)org>, "pgsql-performance(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-performance(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Why isn't PG using an index-only scan? |
Date: | 2025-09-19 07:50:41 |
Message-ID: | 32bb39c7-7c52-412d-9ea8-fa1376b758db@gmail.com |
Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-performance |
On 19/9/2025 03:05, David Rowley wrote:
> On Thu, 18 Sept 2025 at 23:55, Andrei Lepikhov <lepihov(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>> Perhaps we should start working on introducing this type of callback/ hook?
> There's certainly places where you could add a hook that would just
> add an unacceptable overhead that we couldn't stomach. I expect
> ExecProcNode would be one of those places.
That seems a bit odd. It is not a significant issue to instruct the
compiler to trust the 'else' branch of the "if (PlanState::hook !=
NULL)" condition and reduce overhead to zero. However, if the hook is
set, it indicates that the user (module or extension) genuinely needs it
to be called for this specific node.
> I do agree that trying to come up with something for this is worthy of
> some time and effort. Helping people with performance issues when they
> can't even get EXPLAIN ANALYZE to finish is quite tricky.That's all I need; thank you. Starting a PostgreSQL project without
positive feedback from a committer usually results in wasted time,
unless you are purely conducting research ;).
-- regards, Andrei Lepikhov
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Jehan-Guillaume de Rorthais | 2025-09-19 14:37:45 | Re: Indexes on expressions with multiple columns and operators |
Previous Message | Frédéric Yhuel | 2025-09-19 07:50:26 | Re: Indexes on expressions with multiple columns and operators |