Re: WIP: Covering + unique indexes.
Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> writes: > On Wed, Oct 5, 2016 at 9:04 AM, Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com> wrote: >> Okay, but in that case I think we don't need to store including >> columns in non-leaf pages to get the exact ordering. As mentioned >> upthread, we can use truncated scan key to reach to leaf level and >> then use the complete key to find the exact location to store the key. >> This is only possible if there exists an opclass for columns that are >> covered as part of including clause. So, we can allow "order by" to >> use index scan only if the columns covered in included clause have >> opclass for btree. > But what if there are many pages full of keys that have the same > values for the non-INCLUDING columns? I concur with Robert that INCLUDING columns should be just dead weight as far as the index is concerned. Even if opclass information is available for them, it's overcomplication for too little return. We do not need three classes of columns in an index. regards, tom lane
Commits
-
Adjust INCLUDE index truncation comments and code.
- 075aade4361b 11.0 landed
-
Add commentary explaining why MaxIndexTuplesPerPage calculation is safe.
- 2a67d6440db4 11.0 cited
-
Indexes with INCLUDE columns and their support in B-tree
- 8224de4f42cc 11.0 landed
-
Add amcheck verification of heap relations belonging to btree indexes.
- 7f563c09f890 11.0 cited
-
Doc: move info for btree opclass implementors into main documentation.
- 3785f7eee3d9 11.0 cited
-
Doc: mention that you can't PREPARE TRANSACTION after NOTIFY.
- e4fbf22831c2 11.0 cited
-
Remove dedicated B-tree root-split record types.
- 0c504a80cf2e 11.0 cited
-
Restructure index access method API to hide most of it at the C level.
- 65c5fcd353a8 9.6.0 cited
-
Split _bt_insertonpg to two functions.
- bc292937ae6a 8.3.0 cited
-
Major overhaul of btree index code. Eliminate special BTP_CHAIN logic for
- 9e85183bfc31 7.1.1 cited