| From: | James Mansion <james(at)mansionfamily(dot)plus(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | "Decibel!" <decibel(at)decibel(dot)org> |
| Cc: | Gregory Stark <stark(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgreSQL(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Another idea for index-only scans |
| Date: | 2007-08-18 11:19:26 |
| Message-ID: | 46C6D5BE.2030100@mansionfamily.plus.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Decibel! wrote:
> The advantage to Bruce's idea is that it sounds pretty simple to
> implement. While it wouldn't be of use for many general cases, it
> *would* be useful for read-only tables, ie: old partitions.
Wouldn't the mostcommon case by foreign key checks against tables that
essentially map application enums to display strings? This is a rather
common scenario. It would be nice if such tables (which are typically
small) could be retained in each backend process with a simple check
that the cached data is still valid.
James
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Merlin Moncure | 2007-08-18 14:46:53 | Re: pgparam extension to the libpq api |
| Previous Message | Trevor Talbot | 2007-08-18 10:22:58 | Re: tsearch2 in PostgreSQL 8.3? |