Bruce Momjian wrote: > > > > > I doubt everyone would like trading query speed for insert/update > > > > speed plus index size > > > > > > If he is scanning through the entire index, he could do a sequential > > > scan of the table, grab all the tid transaction status values, and use > > > those when viewing the index. No need to store/update the transaction > > > status in the index that way. > > > > Huh ? How ? It is how you do it now. Do you expect > > load several milion transaction statuses into memory, > > then scan index and lookup these values ? > > Missed I something ? > > devik > > > > > > Not sure. I figured they were pretty small values. IIRC the whole point was to avoid scanning the table ? ------------- Hannu
- Re: [HACKERS] pgsql is 75 times faster with my new index ... Alfred Perlstein
- Re: [HACKERS] pgsql is 75 times faster with my new index ... Hannu Krosing
- Re: [HACKERS] pgsql is 75 times faster with my new i... Philip Warner
- Re: [HACKERS] pgsql is 75 times faster with my new i... Hiroshi Inoue
- Re: [HACKERS] pgsql is 75 times faster with my new i... Bruce Momjian
- Re: [HACKERS] pgsql is 75 times faster with my n... Devik
- Re: [HACKERS] pgsql is 75 times faster with ... Bruce Momjian
- Re: [HACKERS] pgsql is 75 times faster w... Hannu Krosing
- Re: [HACKERS] pgsql is 75 times fas... Devik
- Re: [HACKERS] pgsql is 75 times fas... Bruce Momjian
- RE: [HACKERS] pgsql is 75 times faster with my new index ... Mikheev, Vadim
- RE: [HACKERS] pgsql is 75 times faster with my new index ... Mikheev, Vadim
- RE: [HACKERS] pgsql is 75 times faster with my new index ... Mikheev, Vadim
- RE: [HACKERS] pgsql is 75 times faster with my new index ... Mikheev, Vadim