Re: Index Skip Scan - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Andy Fan
Subject Re: Index Skip Scan
Date
Msg-id CAKU4AWq=wWkAo-CDOQ5Ea6UwYvZCgb501w6iqU0rtnTT-zg6bQ@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Index Skip Scan  (Dmitry Dolgov <9erthalion6@gmail.com>)
List pgsql-hackers


On Tue, Jun 2, 2020 at 9:38 PM Dmitry Dolgov <9erthalion6@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 02, 2020 at 08:36:31PM +0800, Andy Fan wrote:
>
> > Other than that to summarize current open points for future readers
> > (this thread somehow became quite big):
> >
> > * Making UniqueKeys usage more generic to allow using skip scan for more
> >   use cases (hopefully it was covered by the v33, but I still need a
> >   confirmation from David, like blinking twice or something).
> >
> > * Suspicious performance difference between different type of workload,
> >   mentioned by Tomas (unfortunately I had no chance yet to investigate).
> >
> > * Thinking about supporting conditions, that are not covered by the index,
> >   to make skipping more flexible (one of the potential next steps in the
> >   future, as suggested by Floris).
> >
>
> Looks this is the latest patch,  which commit it is based on?  Thanks

I have a rebased version, if you're about it. Didn't posted it yet
mostly since I'm in the middle of adapting it to the UniqueKeys from
other thread. Would it be ok for you to wait a bit until I'll post
finished version?

Sure, that's OK.  The discussion on UniqueKey thread looks more complex
than what I expected, that's why I want to check the code here, but that's fine,
you can work on your schedule.

--
Best Regards
Andy Fan

pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Thomas Munro
Date:
Subject: Re: race condition when writing pg_control
Next
From: Cary Huang
Date:
Subject: Re: Internal key management system