| From: | Jeff Davis <pgsql(at)j-davis(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tomas Vondra <tomas(dot)vondra(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, James Coleman <jtc331(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Maxim Ivanov <hi(at)yamlcoder(dot)me>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)bowt(dot)ie> |
| Subject: | Re: Use of additional index columns in rows filtering |
| Date: | 2023-07-19 17:17:12 |
| Message-ID: | 381794e81626fbd9f9c79dd43109faf91093fb97.camel@j-davis.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Wed, 2023-07-19 at 11:16 +0200, Tomas Vondra wrote:
> I wonder if Andres was right (in the index prefetch thread) that
> splitting regular index scans and index-only scans may not be ideal.
> In
> a way, this patch moves those nodes closer, both in capability and
> code
> (because now both use index_getnext_tid etc.).
Yeah. I could also imagine decomposing the index scan node into more
pieces, but I don't think it would work out to be a clean data flow.
Either way, probably out of scope for this patch.
For this patch I think we should just tweak the EXPLAIN output so that
it's a little more clear what parts are index-only (at least if VM bit
is set) and what parts need to go to the heap.
Regards,
Jeff Davis
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Gurjeet Singh | 2023-07-19 17:28:31 | Re: There should be a way to use the force flag when restoring databases |
| Previous Message | Tristan Partin | 2023-07-19 17:15:31 | Re: Fix last unitialized memory warning |