Re: [HACKERS] Surjective functional indexes

From: Konstantin Knizhnik <k(dot)knizhnik(at)postgrespro(dot)ru>
To: Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)alvh(dot)no-ip(dot)org>
Cc: Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Christoph Berg <myon(at)debian(dot)org>, Thomas Munro <thomas(dot)munro(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Surjective functional indexes
Date: 2017-12-15 09:14:05
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On 15.12.2017 01:21, Michael Paquier wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 15, 2017 at 6:15 AM, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)alvh(dot)no-ip(dot)org> wrote:
>> Konstantin Knizhnik wrote:
>>> If you still thing that additional 16 bytes per relation in statistic is too
>>> high overhead, then I will also remove autotune.
>> I think it's pretty clear that these additional bytes are excessive.
> The bar to add new fields in PgStat_TableCounts in very high, and one
> attempt to tackle its scaling problems with many relations is here by
> Horiguchi-san:
> His patch may be worth a look if you need more fields for your
> feature. So it seems to me that the patch as currently presented has
> close to zero chance to be committed as long as you keep your changes
> to pgstat.c.

Ok, looks like everybody think that autotune based on statistic is bad idea.
Attached please find patch without autotune.

Konstantin Knizhnik
Postgres Professional:
The Russian Postgres Company

Attachment Content-Type Size
projection-6.patch text/x-patch 27.0 KB

In response to


Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Aleksander Alekseev 2017-12-15 09:49:55 Re: GSoC 2018
Previous Message Kyotaro HORIGUCHI 2017-12-15 08:32:19 autoprewarm is fogetting to register a tranche.