Re: Index Skip Scan - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Thomas Munro
Subject Re: Index Skip Scan
Date
Msg-id CA+hUKGJbGCSaHnxo0FkXVUNb7srn70z+_dW2nQoiCWOoPwDP-g@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to RE: Index Skip Scan  (Floris Van Nee <florisvannee@Optiver.com>)
Responses Re: Index Skip Scan  (Andy Fan <zhihui.fan1213@gmail.com>)
List pgsql-hackers
Hi Floris,

On Sun, Mar 22, 2020 at 11:00 AM Floris Van Nee
<florisvannee@optiver.com> wrote:
> create index on t1 (a,b,c);

> select * from t1 where b in (100, 200);
>  Execution Time: 2.464 ms
>  Execution Time: 252.224 ms
>  Execution Time: 244.872 ms

Wow.  This is very cool work and I'm sure it will become a major
headline feature of PG14 if the requisite planner brains can be sorted
out.

On Mon, Mar 23, 2020 at 1:55 AM Floris Van Nee <florisvannee@optiver.com> wrote:
> I'm unsure which version number to give this patch (to continue with numbers from previous skip scan patches, or to
startnumbering from scratch again). It's a rather big change, so one could argue it's mostly a separate patch. I guess
itmostly depends on how close the original versions were to be committable. Thoughts? 

I don't know, but from the sidelines, it'd be nice to see the unique
path part go into PG13, where IIUC it can power the "useless unique
removal" patch.



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: Some improvements to numeric sqrt() and ln()
Next
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: Assert() failures during RI checks