Re: [HACKERS] Surjective functional indexes

Konstantin Knizhnik <k.knizhnik@postgrespro.ru>

From: Konstantin Knizhnik <k.knizhnik@postgrespro.ru>
To: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@alvh.no-ip.org>
Cc: Stephen Frost <sfrost@snowman.net>, Michael Paquier <michael.paquier@gmail.com>, Simon Riggs <simon@2ndquadrant.com>, Christoph Berg <myon@debian.org>, Thomas Munro <thomas.munro@enterprisedb.com>, Peter Eisentraut <peter.eisentraut@2ndquadrant.com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>
Date: 2018-03-23T16:17:03Z
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On 23.03.2018 18:45, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> Konstantin Knizhnik wrote:
>
>> rd_projidx is not a list, it is Bitmapset. It is just one of many bitmap
>> sets in RelationData:
> Yes, but the other bitmapsets are of AttrNumber of the involved column.
> They new one is of list_nth() counters for items in the index list.
> That seems weird and it scares me -- do we use that coding pattern
> elsewhere?  Maybe use an array of OIDs instead?
>
Using list or array instead of bitmap requires much more space...
And bitmaps are much more efficient for many operations: check for 
element presence, combine, intersect,...
Check in bitmap has O(0) complexity so iterating through list of all 
indexes or attributes with bitmap check doesn't add any essential overhead.

Sorry, I do not understand this: "They new one is of list_nth() counters 
for items in the index list"

-- 
Konstantin Knizhnik
Postgres Professional: http://www.postgrespro.com
The Russian Postgres Company



Commits

  1. Finish reverting "recheck_on_update" patch.