Per our discussion earlier, it will be really good to add these documents (at least their URLs) to our documentation site to accumulate the knowledge.
Chen On Fri, Jul 8, 2016 at 1:43 PM, Yingyi Bu <[email protected]> wrote: > Cool, thanks a lot, Taewoo! > > Best, > Yingyi > > On Fri, Jul 8, 2016 at 1:36 PM, Taewoo Kim <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Sure. This is the design docs. There are some changes made and I need to >> reflect them. But, these can show the main design. >> >> Index-only >> >> https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1HcoQwaTQu8K2Xdzg46RZP60LqON2oKnWkZx1z1buF1U/edit?usp=sharing >> >> Limit Push-down >> >> https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1lvSLF9j7pcKo2nHkVoiOD9vNSFCNsVDGQYnYCdHhngk/edit?usp=sharing >> >> Regarding the numbers, I have collected some number in the past using >> Pouria's bigFun Benchmark. I have used my version of queries. The result is >> not based on the current design. The huge difference is now we are using >> instantTryLock, rather than tryLock. But you can still get a sense. >> >> https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1YuTuw24TUthr0YhEHMmGr9E4tCYAFxJjlg3S67zRY-M/edit?usp=sharing >> >> >> >> >> Best, >> Taewoo >> >> On Fri, Jul 8, 2016 at 1:09 PM, Yingyi Bu <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> Hi Taewoo, >>> >>> I have a few questions regarding to your index-only change (I'm cc-ing to >>> dev just in case more people are interested in the topic.): >>> >>> 1. Is there any design doc or write up for the index-only change? >>> >>> 2. Do you have ddls/queries that are designed for the index-only >>> performance testing? Do you have some initial performance numbers that >>> compare index-only plans and primary-index-access plans? >>> >>> Thanks! >>> >>> Yingyi >>> >>> >>> >>
