Re: Adding skip scan (including MDAM style range skip scan) to nbtree
От | Natalya Aksman |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Adding skip scan (including MDAM style range skip scan) to nbtree |
Дата | |
Msg-id | CAJumhciVGkGKHdRgy63s7NMgqNbxzy9Wbe8+9i2vhTbnAqcOiQ@mail.gmail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: Adding skip scan (including MDAM style range skip scan) to nbtree (Peter Geoghegan <pg@bowt.ie>) |
Список | pgsql-hackers |
Fantastic, the patch is working, it fixes our issue!
Thank you,
Natalya Aksman.
On Wed, Sep 10, 2025 at 3:12 PM Peter Geoghegan <pg@bowt.ie> wrote:
On Wed, Sep 10, 2025 at 2:59 PM Natalya Aksman <natalya@tigerdata.com> wrote:
> But after btrescan resets "so->numberOfKeys = 0", so->skipScan is not reset to "false" in _bt_preprocess_keys because of this code: https://github.com/postgres/postgres/blob/9016fa7e3bcde8ae4c3d63c707143af147486a10/src/backend/access/nbtree/nbtpreprocesskeys.c#L1847
> After we set "so->numberOfKeys = 0" we quit on line 1847 before we get to the line 1874 where we do "so->skipScan = (numSkipArrayKeys > 0);" https://github.com/postgres/postgres/blob/9016fa7e3bcde8ae4c3d63c707143af147486a10/src/backend/access/nbtree/nbtpreprocesskeys.c#L1874
It sounds like the patch that I posted fixes the problem, without you
having to set so->skipScan externally (which sounds like a big
kludge). Can you confirm that it actually does fix the problem that
you're seeing?
TimescaleDB isn't following the letter of the law here. But I do still
see the argument for consistently setting so->skipScan during
preprocessing. That at least makes sense on general robustness
grounds.
--
Peter Geoghegan
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: