On Fri, 15 May 2020 at 6:06 PM, Dmitry Dolgov <9erthali...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Wed, May 13, 2020 at 02:37:21PM +0530, Dilip Kumar wrote:
> >
> > + if (_bt_scankey_within_page(scan, so->skipScanKey, so->currPos.buf,
> dir))
> > + {
> >
> > Here we expect whether the "next" unique key can be found on this page
> > or not, but we are using the function which suggested whether the
> > "current" key can be found on this page or not. I think in boundary
> > cases where the high key is equal to the current key, this function
> > will return true (which is expected from this function), and based on
> > that we will simply scan the current page and IMHO that cost could be
> > avoided no?
>
> Yes, looks like you're right, there is indeed an unecessary extra scan
> happening. To avoid that we can see the key->nextkey and adjust higher
> boundary correspondingly. Will also add this into the next rebased
> patch, thanks!
Great thanks!
> --
Regards,
Dilip Kumar
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
