Ühel kenal päeval, E, 2006-06-26 kell 16:58, kirjutas Martijn van
> On Mon, Jun 26, 2006 at 10:50:26AM -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> > > > I suppose we would also change the index_getmulti() function to return
> > > > a set of ctids plus flags so the caller knows to follow the chains,
> > > > right? 
> > > 
> > > It is probably better to always return the pointer to the head of CITC
> > > chain (the one an index points to) and do extra visibility checks and
> > > chain-following on each access. This would keep the change internal to
> > > tuple fetching functions.
> > 
> > So index_getnext() traverses the chain and returns one member per call. 
> > Makes sense.  Just realize you are in a single index entry returning
> > multiple tuples.  We will need some record keeping to track that.
> Yes, and for index_getmulti (which doesn't visit the heap at all) we'll
> have to change all the users of that (which aren't many, I suppose).
> It's probably worth making a utility function to expand them.
> I'm still confused where bitmap index scan fit into all of this. Is
> preserving the sequential scan aspect of these a goal with this new
> setup?

Bitmap index scan does not have to change much - only the function that
gets tuple by its ctid must be able to trace forward chains within the

Hannu Krosing
Database Architect
Skype Technologies OÜ
Akadeemia tee 21 F, Tallinn, 12618, Estonia

Skype me:  callto:hkrosing
Get Skype for free:  http://www.skype.com

---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 3: Have you checked our extensive FAQ?


Reply via email to