Re: the big picture for index-only scans
От | Greg Stark |
---|---|
Тема | Re: the big picture for index-only scans |
Дата | |
Msg-id | BANLkTi=XvEA24K=LNNUg=SwyrxK-p-U0nw@mail.gmail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: the big picture for index-only scans ("Kevin Grittner" <Kevin.Grittner@wicourts.gov>) |
Ответы |
Re: the big picture for index-only scans
Re: the big picture for index-only scans Re: the big picture for index-only scans |
Список | pgsql-hackers |
On Wed, May 11, 2011 at 12:14 AM, Kevin Grittner <Kevin.Grittner@wicourts.gov> wrote: > The problem is that there are regular and fairly frequent complaints > on the list about queries which run slower than people expect > To be fair about 3/4 of them were actually complaining about the lack of some global materialized cache of the aggregate value. Covering index-only scans are only going to be a linear speedup no matter how large the factor it's not going to turn select count(*) into a O(1) operation. I support the idea of thinking of this as an optimization. But I don't think there's much question. If we can avoid doing the i/o on the heap that's an obvious and huge win. Sure the costs of maintaining the vm need to be measured against the gains but it we don't know what those costs are yet and whoever works on it will be well aware of that balance. On a separate note though, Simon, I don't know what you mean by "we normally start with a problem". It's an free software project and people are free to work on whatever interests them whether that's because it solves a problem they have, helps a client who's paying them, or just because it's of academic interest to them. We don't always take their patches if they aren't of general interest but people propose all kinds of crazy experimental ideas all the time. -- greg
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: