Re: [PROPOSAL] Covering + unique indexes.
От | Nicolas Barbier |
---|---|
Тема | Re: [PROPOSAL] Covering + unique indexes. |
Дата | |
Msg-id | CAP-rdTbiYt+sgWoNc10boJmwU7qmZto20Larzv3LZ4iB3Mv3MQ@mail.gmail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: [PROPOSAL] Covering + unique indexes. (David Rowley <david.rowley@2ndquadrant.com>) |
Ответы |
Re: [PROPOSAL] Covering + unique indexes.
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
2015-09-15 David Rowley <david.rowley@2ndquadrant.com>: > I'm also a bit confused where f3 comes in here. If it's UNIQUE on (f1,f2) > and we include f4. Where's f3? Columns f1, f2, f3 are in the internal nodes of the tree (i.e., they are used to find the ultimate leaf nodes). f4 is only in the leaf nodes. If f4 are typically big values, and they are typically not used in the search predicate, it makes the upper part of the index (which determines how many levels the index has) larger for no good reason. f4 can still be retrieved without going to the heap, so including it in the leaf nodes makes it possible to do index-only scans more often. Nicolas -- A. Because it breaks the logical sequence of discussion. Q. Why is top posting bad?
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: