| From: | Gregory Stark <stark(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> | 
|---|---|
| To: | "Bruce Momjian" <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> | 
| Cc: | "PostgreSQL-development" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgreSQL(dot)org> | 
| Subject: | Re: Another idea for index-only scans | 
| Date: | 2007-08-15 18:54:00 | 
| Message-ID: | 87y7gcy6gn.fsf@oxford.xeocode.com | 
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email | 
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers | 
"Bruce Momjian" <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> writes:
> I have added another idea for index-only scans to the TODO list:
>
>>   A third idea would be for a heap scan to check if all rows are visible
>>   and if so set a per-table flag which can be checked by index scans.
>>   Any change to the table would have to clear the flag.  To detect
>>   changes during the heap scan a counter could be set at the start and
>>   checked at the end --- if it is the same, the table has not been
>>   modified --- any table change would increment the counter.
I think I would prefer to address this in the same infrastructure as the
dead-space-map. That way you're not dependent on having no updates happening
on the table at all. Any tuples on pages which contain no in-doubt tuples
could have their visibility check skipped but when you come across a tuple on
a page which has been modified since the last vacuum then you have to check
the visibility.
-- 
  Gregory Stark
  EnterpriseDB          http://www.enterprisedb.com
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Magnus Hagander | 2007-08-15 18:57:14 | Re: CVS corruption/mistagging? | 
| Previous Message | Josh Berkus | 2007-08-15 18:45:17 | Re: change name of redirect_stderr? |