Re: Avoid full GIN index scan when possible - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Alvaro Herrera
Subject Re: Avoid full GIN index scan when possible
Date
Msg-id 20190902222001.GA2704@alvherre.pgsql
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Avoid full GIN index scan when possible  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
List pgsql-hackers
On 2019-Aug-07, Tom Lane wrote:

> I think this would be committable as it stands, except that replacing
> an ALL scan with an EVERYTHING scan could be a performance regression
> if the index contains many null items.  We need to do something about
> that before committing.

Nikita, any word on getting this change done?

> Unfortunately I'm not sold on either 0002 or 0003 as they stand;
> they seem overly complicated, I'm not convinced they're correct,
> and you haven't really provided examples showing that all this
> extra complexity is worthwhile.

I suppose we should call ourselves satisfied if we get 0001 done during
this cycle (or at least this commitfest).  Further refinement can be had
in the future, as needed -- even within pg13, if Nikita or anybody else
wants to tackle Tom's suggested approaches (or something completely new,
or just contest Tom's points) quickly enough.  But I don't think we need
that in order to call this CF entry committed.

-- 
Álvaro Herrera                https://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Alvaro Herrera
Date:
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] logical decoding of two-phase transactions
Next
From: Noah Misch
Date:
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] WAL logging problem in 9.4.3?