Re: Index AM change proposals, redux
| От | Tom Lane |
|---|---|
| Тема | Re: Index AM change proposals, redux |
| Дата | |
| Msg-id | 12592.1208966830@sss.pgh.pa.us обсуждение исходный текст |
| Ответ на | Re: Index AM change proposals, redux (Simon Riggs <simon@2ndquadrant.com>) |
| Ответы |
Re: Index AM change proposals, redux
|
| Список | pgsql-hackers |
Simon Riggs <simon@2ndquadrant.com> writes:
> I don't see the "returns index keys" idea as being killed by or killing
> this concept. Returning keys is valid and useful when we can, but there
> are other considerations that, in some use cases, will be a dominant
> factor.
The patch as-submitted was a killer for the concept, because it
automatically discarded information and there was no way to prevent
that. To be acceptable, a GIT patch would have to be optional and it
would have to expose in the catalogs whether a given index was lossy
in this way or not (so that the planner could know whether a plan based
on returning index keys would work).
regards, tom lane
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: