| From: | Jesper Pedersen <jesper(dot)pedersen(at)redhat(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Thomas Munro <thomas(dot)munro(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Bhushan Uparkar <bhushan(dot)uparkar(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Alexander Korotkov <a(dot)korotkov(at)postgrespro(dot)ru> |
| Subject: | Re: Index Skip Scan |
| Date: | 2018-08-16 18:28:45 |
| Message-ID: | 51bb3284-2902-1c64-0bae-8866c85cde47@redhat.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Hi Thomas,
On 08/16/2018 02:22 AM, Thomas Munro wrote:
> The idea of starting with DISTINCT was just that it's
> comparatively easy. We should certainly try to look ahead and bear
> those features in mind when figuring out the interfaces though. Would
> the indexam skip(scan, direction, prefix_size) operation I proposed be
> sufficient? Is there a better way?
>
Yeah, I'm hoping that a Committer can provide some feedback on the
direction that this patch needs to take.
One thing to consider is the pluggable storage patch, which is a lot
more important than this patch. I don't want this patch to get in the
way of that work, so it may have to wait a bit in order to see any new
potential requirements.
> I'm glad to see this topic come back!
>
You did the work, and yes hopefully we can get closer to this subject in
12 :)
Best regards,
Jesper
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Stephen Frost | 2018-08-16 18:36:02 | Re: Index Skip Scan |
| Previous Message | Alexander Korotkov | 2018-08-16 18:28:44 | Re: [HACKERS] Bug in to_timestamp(). |