Re: [DOCS] The number of bytes is stored in index_size of pgstatindex() ?
От | Peter Geoghegan |
---|---|
Тема | Re: [DOCS] The number of bytes is stored in index_size of pgstatindex() ? |
Дата | |
Msg-id | CAM3SWZRLfCayENUVE2SqyeAiYKLFO7a7cHK4YbJGj55ZQ2i35w@mail.gmail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: [DOCS] The number of bytes is stored in index_size of pgstatindex() ? (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>) |
Ответы |
Re: [DOCS] The number of bytes is stored in index_size of pgstatindex() ?
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
On Thu, Feb 18, 2016 at 10:49 AM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > Yeah, that seems a bit strange to me as well. Should we change it to > count the root as an internal page, or is that going too far? I think we should change it. It seems like a bug to me. I've had the same point come up ("leaf-ness/internal-ness and root-ness are orthogonal") a couple of times with Heikki over the years. I just haven't used pgstattuple very much for some reason, and so didn't catch it before now. > Note that it's already the case that in a one-page index (root is also > a leaf), the root will be included in the leaf_pages count. So it > sure seems inconsistent that it's not included in the internal_pages > count when it's not a leaf. That's what I was thinking. > Well, actually, since we don't have write lock on the index it'd be > possible to see zero or multiple roots because the root's location > changes. That's already mentioned in the documentation, if somewhat > obliquely. Ah, yes. Another consequence of going in physical order. -- Peter Geoghegan
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: