Re: improve transparency of bitmap-only heap scans - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Alexey Bashtanov
Subject Re: improve transparency of bitmap-only heap scans
Date
Msg-id c9388a48-3644-8be1-d5e2-bf2306dca369@imap.cc
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: improve transparency of bitmap-only heap scans  (Emre Hasegeli <emre@hasegeli.com>)
Responses Re: improve transparency of bitmap-only heap scans  (Tomas Vondra <tomas.vondra@2ndquadrant.com>)
Re: improve transparency of bitmap-only heap scans  (David Steele <david@pgmasters.net>)
List pgsql-hackers
Hello,

> It took me a while to figure out what those names mean.  "unfetched",
> as you call it on the code, may be more descriptive than "avoided" for
> the new label.  However I think the other two are more confusing.  It
> may be a good idea to change them together with this.
It'll be sad if this patch is forgotten only because of the words choice.
I've changed it all to "unfetched" for at least not to call the same 
thing differently
in the code and in the output, and also rebased it and fit in 80 lines 
width limit.

Best, Alex

Attachment

pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Robert Haas
Date:
Subject: Re: Assumptions about the number of parallel workers
Next
From: Ashutosh Bapat
Date:
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Erase the distinctClause if the result is unique by definition