| From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
| Cc: | Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Dilip Kumar <dilipbalaut(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Proposal: scan key push down to heap [WIP] |
| Date: | 2016-10-31 13:28:00 |
| Message-ID: | CA+TgmoY_M3eheiXLcD=KwB_6bgVu1JUuuqv4X2QS0Dg9kZvFBg@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Fri, Oct 28, 2016 at 2:46 AM, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> wrote:
> Well, that'll also make the feature not particularly useful :(. My
> suspicion is that the way to suceed here isn't to rely more on testing
> as part of the scan, but create a more general fastpath for qual
> evaluation, which atm is a *LOT* more heavyweight than what
> HeapKeyTest() does. But maybe I'm biased since I'm working on the
> latter...
I think you might be right, but I'm not very clear on what the
timeline for your work is. It would be easier to say, sure, let's put
this on hold if we knew that in a month or two we could come back and
retest after you've made some progress. But I don't know whether
we're talking about months or years.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Craig Ringer | 2016-10-31 13:28:59 | Re: Logical decoding and walsender timeouts |
| Previous Message | Tomas Vondra | 2016-10-31 13:24:58 | Re: Speed up Clog Access by increasing CLOG buffers |