| From: | Aidan Van Dyk <aidan(at)highrise(dot)ca> |
|---|---|
| To: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>, Jeff Janes <jeff(dot)janes(at)gmail(dot)com>, "David E(dot) Wheeler" <david(at)justatheory(dot)com>, Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Covering Indexes |
| Date: | 2012-06-28 16:23:52 |
| Message-ID: | CAC_2qU-GbSKjY3B2Bsrh9jY6JctPBy3pFYw-cQ+rF8TNB+J7xg@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Thu, Jun 28, 2012 at 12:12 PM, Alvaro Herrera
<alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com> wrote:
> The other question is whether such an index would prevent an update from
> being HOT when the non-indexed values are touched. That could be a
> significant difference.
I don't see Index-Only-Scans being something that will be used in
"high churn" tables.
So as long as the value of these "covering/included" fields is tied to
index-only scans, maybe it isn't a problem?
Of course, we have have a hard time convincing people that the "index
only" scans they want can't be "index only" because heap pages aren't
"all visible"...
a.
--
Aidan Van Dyk Create like a god,
aidan(at)highrise(dot)ca command like a king,
http://www.highrise.ca/ work like a slave.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Josh Kupershmidt | 2012-06-28 16:32:41 | Re: pg_signal_backend() asymmetry |
| Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2012-06-28 16:23:05 | Re: embedded list v2 |