Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> writes:
> On Fri, Oct 21, 2011 at 10:57 PM, Jeff Janes <jeff.ja...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> If count(*) could cause the index-only scan to happen in physical
>> order of the index, rather than logical order, that might be a big
>> win. Both for all in memory and for not-all-in-memory.
> That's an interesting point. I sort of assumed that would only help
> for not-all-in-memory, but maybe not. The trouble is that I think
> there are some problematic concurrency issues there.
Yeah. We managed to make physical-order scanning work for VACUUM
because it's okay if VACUUM sometimes sees the same index tuple twice;
it'll just make the same decision about (not) deleting it. That will
not fly for regular querying.
regards, tom lane
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
