> 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 ?
Yes, sorry.
--
Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us
[EMAIL PROTECTED] | (610) 853-3000
+ If your life is a hard drive, | 830 Blythe Avenue
+ Christ can be your backup. | Drexel Hill, Pennsylvania 19026
