Re: get_actual_variable_range vs idx_scan/idx_tup_fetch, again

Поиск
Список
Период
Сортировка
От Tom Lane
Тема Re: get_actual_variable_range vs idx_scan/idx_tup_fetch, again
Дата
Msg-id 12326.1520262537@sss.pgh.pa.us
обсуждение исходный текст
Ответ на get_actual_variable_range vs idx_scan/idx_tup_fetch, again  (Marko Tiikkaja <marko@joh.to>)
Ответы Re: get_actual_variable_range vs idx_scan/idx_tup_fetch, again  (Marko Tiikkaja <marko@joh.to>)
Список pgsql-hackers
Marko Tiikkaja <marko@joh.to> writes:
> So I'm in the same pickle again.  According to pg_stat_user_indexes an
> index is being used all the time.  However, it's only being used by
> mergejoinscansel() to compare these two plans:

If it's not being used otherwise, could you drop it?

> I think it would be really important to have a way to turn off
> get_actual_variable_range() for a specific index during runtime.  Would a C
> level hook be acceptable for this?

You haven't really made a case for why you (or anyone else) should care.
As long as the planner makes the right choice, having investigated a wrong
choice doesn't seem like a bug to me.

            regards, tom lane


В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления:

Предыдущее
От: Tom Lane
Дата:
Сообщение: Re: PATCH: psql tab completion for SELECT
Следующее
От: Claudio Freire
Дата:
Сообщение: Re: [HACKERS] [PATCH] Vacuum: Update FSM more frequently