| From: | Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Teodor Sigaev <teodor(at)sigaev(dot)ru> |
| Cc: | Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Block B-Tree concept |
| Date: | 2006-09-26 12:37:01 |
| Message-ID: | 45191EED.2080502@enterprisedb.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Teodor Sigaev wrote:
>> Right now, if an index entry points to a dead tuple, we set a bit in
>> the index so future lookups do not access the heap. We could set a
>> bit for block index entries that point to a page that has no live
>> rows, and
>> have vacuum remove the index entry later.
>
> GIN don't support this feature...
I'm only talking about B-trees at this stage. ISTM that you could do the
same thing with hash indexes, but I haven't given it much thought.
Anyway, I think you'd usually want to use bitmap scans with a Block
B-tree, unless you need sorted output. And bitmap scans don't set the
LP_DELETE flag either. We might want to do something about that.
--
Heikki Linnakangas
EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Simon Riggs | 2006-09-26 12:39:24 | Re: Please to technical check of upcoming release |
| Previous Message | Bruce Momjian | 2006-09-26 12:32:59 | Re: Block B-Tree concept |