Re: Why is indexonlyscan so darned slow?
От | Simon Riggs |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Why is indexonlyscan so darned slow? |
Дата | |
Msg-id | CA+U5nM+gf5F=nm3ceaiWofXS+rjybUn_vsLRQakOp+0byGDn4A@mail.gmail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: Why is indexonlyscan so darned slow? (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>) |
Ответы |
Re: Why is indexonlyscan so darned slow?
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
On 21 May 2012 16:02, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > Simon Riggs <simon@2ndQuadrant.com> writes: >> Surely the way to solve this is by having a new plan node that does a >> physical SeqScan of the index relation. It means we wouldn't preserve >> the sort order of the rows from the index, but that is just a plan >> cost issue. > >> This is exactly what we do for VACUUM and it works faster there. > > The reason that's okay for vacuum is that vacuum doesn't care if it > visits the same index tuple multiple times. It will not work for real > queries, unless you would like to lock out all concurrent inserts. I checked a little more and Oracle supports something called a Fast Index Scan. Maybe there is a way. -- Simon Riggs http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: