Re: [HACKERS] Surjective functional indexes

Поиск
Список
Период
Сортировка
От Laurenz Albe
Тема Re: [HACKERS] Surjective functional indexes
Дата
Msg-id a9b352e807b53ef04b307e1453399fd601bdf076.camel@cybertec.at
обсуждение исходный текст
Ответ на Re: [HACKERS] Surjective functional indexes  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
Ответы Re: [HACKERS] Surjective functional indexes  (Konstantin Knizhnik <k.knizhnik@postgrespro.ru>)
Список pgsql-hackers
Tom Lane wrote:
> I wanted to enumerate my concerns while yesterday's
> events are still fresh in mind.  (Andres or Robert might have more.)
> 
> * I do not understand why this feature is on-by-default in the first
> place.  It can only be a win for expression indexes that are many-to-one
> mappings; for indexes that are one-to-one or few-to-one, it's a pretty
> big loss.  I see no reason to assume that most expression indexes fall
> into the first category.  I suggest that the design ought to be to use
> this optimization only for indexes for which the user has explicitly
> enabled recheck_on_update.  That would allow getting rid of the cost check
> in IsProjectionFunctionalIndex, about which we'd otherwise have to have
> an additional fight: I do not like its ad-hoc-ness, nor the modularity
> violation (and potential circularity) involved in having the relcache call
> cost_qual_eval.

That was my impression too when I had a closer look at this feature.

What about an option "hot_update_check" with values "off" (default),
"on" and "always"?

Yours,
Laurenz Albe



В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления:

Предыдущее
От: Tomas Vondra
Дата:
Сообщение: Re: valgrind issues on Fedora 28
Следующее
От: Kyotaro HORIGUCHI
Дата:
Сообщение: Re: Connection slots reserved for replication