Re: ignore_killed_tuples is always true
Re: ignore_killed_tuples is always true
От:
Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Дата:
ITAGAKI Takahiro writes: > I found IndexScanDesc->ignore_killed_tuples is always true. > Is this still needed? What is the point of removing it? You cannot argue that saving one if-test per tuple is a worthwhile speedup. regards, tom lane
ignore_killed_tuples is always true
От:
ITAGAKI Takahiro <itagaki.takahiro@lab.ntt.co.jp>
Дата:
I found IndexScanDesc->ignore_killed_tuples is always true. Is this still needed? Also, I cannot understand why gistgetmulti calls gistnext with ignore_killed_tuples = false. We can always ignore LP_DELETEed tuples, right? --- ITAGAKI Takahiro NTT Cyber Space Laboratories
Re: ignore_killed_tuples is always true
От:
ITAGAKI Takahiro <itagaki.takahiro@lab.ntt.co.jp>
Дата:
Tom Lane wrote: > It's not saving any noticeable amount of code, and what it is doing > is removing functionality we might want someday. It's not hard to > imagine pgstattuple or VACUUM or other maintenance operations wanting > to look at killed index entries. I suggested it not for performance, but for simplicity of code. So if we still need it, I agree to leave it. Moreover, LP_DELETEed tuples might be useful for Bitmap NOT And/Or join, not only maintenance operations. Union-side of bitmap should not contain LP_DELETEed tuples, and Except-side should do. --- ITAGAKI Takahiro NTT Cyber Space Laboratories
Re: ignore_killed_tuples is always true
От:
Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Дата:
Jaime Casanova writes: > On 2/10/06, Tom Lane wrote: >> What is the point of removing it? You cannot argue that saving >> one if-test per tuple is a worthwhile speedup. > to clean code? It's not saving any noticeable amount of code, and what it is doing is removing functionality we might want someday. It's not hard to imagine pgstattuple or VACUUM or other maintenance operations wanting to look at killed index entries. regards, tom lane
Re: ignore_killed_tuples is always true
От:
Jaime Casanova <systemguards@gmail.com>
Дата:
On 2/10/06, Tom Lane wrote: > ITAGAKI Takahiro writes: > > I found IndexScanDesc->ignore_killed_tuples is always true. > > Is this still needed? > > What is the point of removing it? You cannot argue that saving > one if-test per tuple is a worthwhile speedup. > > regards, tom lane > to clean code? -- regards, Jaime Casanova (DBA: DataBase Aniquilator ;)