Re: Optimizing nbtree ScalarArrayOp execution, allowing multi-column ordered scans, skip scan - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Matthias van de Meent
Subject Re: Optimizing nbtree ScalarArrayOp execution, allowing multi-column ordered scans, skip scan
Date
Msg-id CAEze2Wj4qf=BRtLztv04gvQo1TGKJb+y-BhE4k3ArsC2JMkC8A@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Optimizing nbtree ScalarArrayOp execution, allowing multi-column ordered scans, skip scan  (Matthias van de Meent <boekewurm+postgres@gmail.com>)
Responses Re: Optimizing nbtree ScalarArrayOp execution, allowing multi-column ordered scans, skip scan
List pgsql-hackers
On Wed, 6 Mar 2024 at 22:46, Matthias van de Meent
<boekewurm+postgres@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Wed, 6 Mar 2024 at 01:50, Peter Geoghegan <pg@bowt.ie> wrote:
> > At one point Heikki suggested that I just get rid of
> > BTScanOpaqueData.arrayKeyData (which has been there for as long as
> > nbtree had native support for SAOPs), and use
> > BTScanOpaqueData.keyData exclusively instead. I've finally got around
> > to doing that now.
>
> I'm not sure if it was worth the reduced churn when the changes for
> the primary optimization are already 150+kB in size; every "small"
> addition increases the context needed to review the patch, and it's
> already quite complex.

To clarify, what I mean here is that merging the changes of both the
SAOPs changes and the removal of arrayKeyData seems to increase the
patch size and increases the maximum complexity of each component
patch's review.
Separate patches may make this more reviewable, or not, but no comment
was given on why it is better to merge the changes into a single
patch.

- Matthias



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Matthias van de Meent
Date:
Subject: Re: Optimizing nbtree ScalarArrayOp execution, allowing multi-column ordered scans, skip scan
Next
From: Thomas Munro
Date:
Subject: Re: Large files for relations