Re: AW: pg_index.indislossy

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