| From: | Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Jeff Janes <jeff(dot)janes(at)gmail(dot)com>, Justin Pryzby <pryzby(at)telsasoft(dot)com>, David Steele <david(at)pgmasters(dot)net>, James Coleman <jtc331(at)gmail(dot)com>, Alexey Bashtanov <bashtanov(at)imap(dot)cc>, Emre Hasegeli <emre(at)hasegeli(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: improve transparency of bitmap-only heap scans |
| Date: | 2020-03-25 03:02:39 |
| Message-ID: | CAA4eK1+fw4GnHk1KrD8Q3no7zcRV+tvkN4HZGW2J1e_zo-=k=g@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Wed, Mar 25, 2020 at 12:44 AM Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
>
> I took a quick look through this patch. While I see nothing to complain
> about implementation-wise, I'm a bit befuddled as to why we need this
> reporting when there is no comparable data provided for regular index-only
> scans. Over there, you just get "Heap Fetches: n", and the existing
> counts for bitmap scans seem to cover the same territory.
>
Isn't deducing similar information ("Skipped Heap Fetches: n") there
is a bit easier than it is here?
--
With Regards,
Amit Kapila.
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Thomas Munro | 2020-03-25 03:18:17 | Re: Collation versions on Windows (help wanted, apply within) |
| Previous Message | Dave Sharpe | 2020-03-25 02:49:55 | [PATCH] Fix CommitTransactionCommand() to CallXactCallbacks() in TBLOCK_ABORT_END |