Re: [HACKERS] Bizarre coding in _bt_binsrch
От | Tom Lane |
---|---|
Тема | Re: [HACKERS] Bizarre coding in _bt_binsrch |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 18743.943927632@sss.pgh.pa.us обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: [HACKERS] Bizarre coding in _bt_binsrch (Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us>) |
Ответы |
Re: [HACKERS] Bizarre coding in _bt_binsrch
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us> writes: > Tom, I assume you have dealt with this, right? >> I have been puzzling out the coding in _bt_binsrch() in >> backend/access/nbtree/nbtsearch.c, with an eye to speeding it up for >> the many-equal-keys case. I tweaked the code to go faster in the equal-keys case, but Vadim later pointed out that what we *really* should do is force the algorithms to never consider two index keys equal (eg, by including the heap tuple id as the last part of the comparison key). See his pgsql-hackers message dated 06 Jun 1999 21:32:36 +0800. Getting the full benefit would require ripping out the BTP_CHAIN logic and doing some other major surgery, so I don't feel like I know the btree code well enough to tackle it. It should be on the TODO list though: * Include heap CTID in btree index keys, remove equal-key cruft from btree regards, tom lane
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: