Tom Lane writes:
> Not true at all. The tuple commit status needs to be rechecked, yes,
> but with a normal index it is not necessary to recheck whether the index
> key field actually satisfies the index qual conditions. With a lossy
> index it *is* necessary to recheck --- the index may return more tuples
> than the ones that match the given qual.
Okay, this is not surprising. I agree that storing this in the index
might be suboptimal.
But why is this called lossy? Shouldn't it be called "exceedy"?
--
Peter Eisentraut peter_e@gmx.net http://funkturm.homeip.net/~peter