Re: Avoid full GIN index scan when possible
Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@2ndquadrant.com>
From: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@2ndquadrant.com>
To: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Cc: Nikita Glukhov <n.gluhov@postgrespro.ru>, Alexander Korotkov <a.korotkov@postgrespro.ru>, Julien Rouhaud <rjuju123@gmail.com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org>, Thomas Munro <thomas.munro@gmail.com>, Marc Cousin <cousinmarc@gmail.com>, Tomas Vondra <tomas.vondra@2ndquadrant.com>
Date: 2019-09-02T22:20:01Z
Lists: pgsql-hackers
On 2019-Aug-07, Tom Lane wrote: > I think this would be committable as it stands, except that replacing > an ALL scan with an EVERYTHING scan could be a performance regression > if the index contains many null items. We need to do something about > that before committing. Nikita, any word on getting this change done? > Unfortunately I'm not sold on either 0002 or 0003 as they stand; > they seem overly complicated, I'm not convinced they're correct, > and you haven't really provided examples showing that all this > extra complexity is worthwhile. I suppose we should call ourselves satisfied if we get 0001 done during this cycle (or at least this commitfest). Further refinement can be had in the future, as needed -- even within pg13, if Nikita or anybody else wants to tackle Tom's suggested approaches (or something completely new, or just contest Tom's points) quickly enough. But I don't think we need that in order to call this CF entry committed. -- Álvaro Herrera https://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
Commits
-
Avoid full scan of GIN indexes when possible
- 4b754d6c16e1 13.0 landed