> > > The last step could be done in two ways. First by limiting > > > number of indices for one table we can store coresponding > > > indices' TIDs in each heap tuple. The update is then simple > > > taking one disk write. > > > > Why limit it ? One could just save an tid array in each tuple . because when you add new index you had to rescan whole heap and grow the tid array .. > Indice's TIDs are transient. > Isn't it useless to store indice's TIDs ? but yes Hiroshi is right. Index TID is transient. I first looked into pg sources two weeks ago so I have still holes in my knowledge. So that only solution is to traverse it ..
- [HACKERS] pgsql is 75 times faster with my new index scan devik
- Re: [HACKERS] pgsql is 75 times faster with my new i... Alfred Perlstein
- Re: [HACKERS] pgsql is 75 times faster with my new i... Hannu Krosing
- Re: [HACKERS] pgsql is 75 times faster with my n... Philip Warner
- Re: [HACKERS] pgsql is 75 times faster with ... devik
- [HACKERS] Deep Trouble Abe Asghar
- Re: [HACKERS] pgsql is 75 times faster with my n... Hiroshi Inoue
- Re: [HACKERS] pgsql is 75 times faster with my n... Bruce Momjian
- Re: [HACKERS] pgsql is 75 times faster with ... Devik
- Re: [HACKERS] pgsql is 75 times faster w... Bruce Momjian
- Re: [HACKERS] pgsql is 75 times fas... Hannu Krosing
- Re: [HACKERS] pgsql is 75 times... Devik
- Re: [HACKERS] pgsql is 75 times... Bruce Momjian
- RE: [HACKERS] pgsql is 75 times faster with my new i... Mikheev, Vadim
- RE: [HACKERS] pgsql is 75 times faster with my new i... Mikheev, Vadim