Re: Further open item (Was: Status of 7.2)
Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us>
From: Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us>
To: Peter Eisentraut <peter_e@gmx.net>
Cc: "Tille, Andreas" <TilleA@rki.de>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>
Date: 2001-11-16T17:02:16Z
Lists: pgsql-hackers
> We are always willing to discuss changes that improve performance, > reliability, standards compliance, etc. However, "MS SQL does it, and MS > SQL is fast" is not sufficient proof that a feature would improve average > performance in PostgreSQL. This issue has been brought up with similarly > unsatisfactory arguments in the past, so you should be able to find out > about the discussion in the archives. Some of the arguments against this > change were bigger indexes, slower write operations, non-existent proof > that it's really faster, putting the index on a different disk will mostly > obsolete the issue. Consequently, this is currently not something that > has got a chance to be implemented anytime soon. I personally would like to have index scans that look up heap rows record the heap expired status into the index entry via one bit of storage. This will not _prevent_ checking the heap but it will prevent heap lookups for index entries that have been exipred for a long time. However, with the new vacuum, and perhaps autovacuum coming soon, may be little need for this optimization. The underlying problem the user is seeing is how to _know_ an index tuple is valid without checking the heap, and I don't see how to do that unless we start storing the transaction id in the index tuple, and that requires extra storage. -- Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us pgman@candle.pha.pa.us | (610) 853-3000 + If your life is a hard drive, | 830 Blythe Avenue + Christ can be your backup. | Drexel Hill, Pennsylvania 19026