| From: | Dilip Kumar <dilipbalaut(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Kouhei Kaigai <kaigai(at)ak(dot)jp(dot)nec(dot)com>, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Proposal: scan key push down to heap [WIP] |
| Date: | 2016-11-14 16:14:20 |
| Message-ID: | CAFiTN-tJ8fQwOe+EzBpcG0Joxtuj9vMGKNu5_e6iCP8_0wzeDg@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Mon, Nov 14, 2016 at 9:30 PM, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> Couldn't we just change the current memory context before calling
> heap_getnext()? And then change back?
Right, seems like it will not have any problem..
>
> Also, what if we abandoned the idea of pushing qual evaluation all the
> way down into the heap and just tried to do HeapKeyTest in SeqNext
> itself? Would that be almost as fast, or would it give up most of the
> benefits?
This we can definitely test. I will test and post the data.
Thanks for the suggestion.
--
Regards,
Dilip Kumar
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2016-11-14 16:18:06 | Re: Pinning a buffer in TupleTableSlot is unnecessary |
| Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2016-11-14 16:00:49 | Re: Proposal: scan key push down to heap [WIP] |