From: | Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com, Guillaume Cottenceau <gc(at)mnc(dot)ch>, pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Poor performance on seq scan |
Date: | 2006-09-12 13:45:06 |
Message-ID: | 4506B9E2.9050608@enterprisedb.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-performance |
Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> Are you saying that an indexscan "Filter" only acts after getting the
> heap tuple? If that's the case, then there's room for optimization
> here, namely if the affected column is part of the index key, then we
> could do the filtering before fetching the heap tuple.
That's right. Yes, there's definitely room for optimization. In general,
it seems we should detach the index scan and heap fetch more. Perhaps
make them two different nodes, like the bitmap index scan and bitmap
heap scan. It would allow us to do the above. It's also going to be
necessary if we ever get to implement index-only scans.
--
Heikki Linnakangas
EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Scott Marlowe | 2006-09-12 14:27:11 | Re: Performance problem with Sarge compared with Woody |
Previous Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2006-09-12 13:32:55 | Re: Poor performance on seq scan |