> > > > 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 ?
Yes. This was the main point ! For small number of records the
current method is fast enough. The direct index scan is useful
for big tables and doing scan over large parts of them (like
in aggregates).
devik
