On Fri, Oct 26, 2012 at 7:01 PM, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > Claudio Freire <klaussfre...@gmail.com> writes: >> Because once you've accessed that last index page, it would be rather >> trivial finding out how many duplicate tids are in that page and, with >> a small CPU cost (no disk access if you don't query other index pages) >> you could verify the assumption of near-uniqueness. > > I thought about that too, but I'm not sure how promising the idea is. > In the first place, it's not clear when to stop counting duplicates, and > in the second, I'm not sure we could get away with not visiting the heap > to check for tuple liveness. There might be a lot of apparent > duplicates in the index that just represent unreaped old versions of a > frequently-updated endpoint tuple. (The existing code is capable of > returning a "wrong" answer if the endpoint tuple is dead, but I don't > think it matters much in most cases. I'm less sure such an argument > could be made for dup-counting.)
Would checking the visibility map be too bad? An index page worth of tuples should also fit within a page in the visibility map. -- Sent via pgsql-performance mailing list (pgsql-performance@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-performance
