Bruce Momjian wrote:
>
> > > > I doubt everyone would like trading query speed for insert/update
> > > > speed plus index size
> > >
> > > If he is scanning through the entire index, he could do a sequential
> > > scan of the table, grab all the tid transaction status values, and use
> > > those when viewing the index. No need to store/update the transaction
> > > status in the index that way.
> >
> > Huh ? How ? It is how you do it now. Do you expect
> > load several milion transaction statuses into memory,
> > then scan index and lookup these values ?
> > Missed I something ?
> > devik
> >
> >
>
> Not sure. I figured they were pretty small values.
IIRC the whole point was to avoid scanning the table ?
-------------
Hannu
