From: | Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)heroku(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | Daniel Newman <dtnewman(at)gmail(dot)com>, danielnewman(at)umich(dot)edu, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-bugs <pgsql-bugs(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: BUG #14210: filter by "=" constraint doesn't work when hash index is present on a column |
Date: | 2016-06-27 20:31:43 |
Message-ID: | CAM3SWZRPkuxiT0EmCLCd3xjA=AWbfuy1qv-89r4iMTOtYFZJ4Q@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-bugs |
On Mon, Jun 27, 2016 at 1:22 PM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)heroku(dot)com> writes:
>> I like this idea. Should I write a patch?
>
> BTW, while you're at it: it strikes me that the threshold should be
> either min(NBuffers, maintenance_work_mem) or
> min(NLocBuffer, maintenance_work_mem), depending on whether we're
> talking about a regular or temp table/index. That is, there's a
> pre-existing bug here that when NLocBuffer is a good deal less than
> NBuffers (which is the typical case nowadays) you'll get a lot of
> thrashing between local buffers and kernel cache, if the index isn't
> quite big enough to trigger the sorting code. This might not manifest
> as actual I/O, but it's not the intended behavior either.
Understood. It's on my TODO list for the week, although I'll
prioritize isolating and fixing that UPSERT "attempted to delete
invisible tuple" bug.
--
Peter Geoghegan
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Michael Paquier | 2016-06-28 00:58:11 | Re: BUG #13907: Restore materialized view throw permission denied |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2016-06-27 20:22:25 | Re: BUG #14210: filter by "=" constraint doesn't work when hash index is present on a column |