Re: Get more from indices.
От | Etsuro Fujita |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Get more from indices. |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 00b401cef1b2$3f328030$bd978090$@etsuro@lab.ntt.co.jp обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: Get more from indices. ("Etsuro Fujita" <fujita.etsuro@lab.ntt.co.jp>) |
Ответы |
Re: Get more from indices.
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
I wrote: > Kyotaro HORIGUCHI wrote: > > Another is, you changed pathkeys expantion to be all-or-nothing decision. > > While this change should simplify the code slightly, it also dismisses > > the oppotunity for partially-extended pathkeys. Could you let me know > > the > reason > > why you did so. > At first I thought the partially-extended pathkey list that is made from > query_pathkeys, as you proposed in the original versions of the patch. But > I've started to doubt whether it's worth doing that because I think the > partially-extended pathkey list is merely one example while the original > pathkey list can be partially-extended in different ways, ie, ISTM the > partially-extended pathkey list doesn't necessarily have the optimality > in anything significant. We might be able to partially-extend the original > pathkey list optimally in something significant, but that seems useless > complexity to me. So, I modified the patch to do the all-or-nothing > decision. Here I mean the optimality for use in merge joins. Thanks, Best regards, Etsuro Fujita
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: