On 10 August 2016 at 03:45, Pavan Deolasee <pavan.deola...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > On Tue, Aug 9, 2016 at 12:06 AM, Claudio Freire <klaussfre...@gmail.com> > wrote: >> >> On Mon, Aug 8, 2016 at 2:52 PM, Pavan Deolasee <pavan.deola...@gmail.com> >> wrote: >> >> > Some heuristics and limits on amount of work done to detect duplicate >> > index >> > entries will help too. >> >> I think I prefer a more thorough approach. >> >> Increment/decrement may get very complicated with custom opclasses, >> for instance. A column-change bitmap won't know how to handle >> funcional indexes, etc. >> >> What I intend to try, is modify btree to allow efficient search of a >> key-ctid pair, by adding the ctid to the sort order. > > > Yes, that's a good medium term plan. And this is kind of independent from > the core idea.
+1 That seems like a good idea. It would allow us to produce a bitmap scan in blocksorted order. > So I'll go ahead and write a patch that implements the core > idea and some basic optimizations. +1 > We can then try different approaches such > as tracking changed columns, tracking increment/decrement and teaching btree > to skip duplicate (key, CTID) entries. -- Simon Riggs http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
