Seamus Abshere writes:
> Being able to tell postgres that our table is "Read Only" has imaginary
> mystical properties for me, first and foremost being able to count
> against indexes without ever hitting the disk.
>> âIf the system is working properly then a READ ONLY
On Mon, Feb 22, 2016 at 2:35 PM, Seamus Abshere wrote:
> hi,
>
> https://wiki.postgresql.org/wiki/ReadOnlyTables mentions the possibility
> of `ALTER TABLE table SET READ ONLY`.
>
> Would this mean that row visibility checks could be skipped and thus
> index-only scans much
On Mon, Feb 22, 2016, at 06:48 PM, David G. Johnston wrote:
> it would probably be more constructive to actually communicate the thoughts
> that provoked the question.
My company has a largish table - 250+ columns, 1 row for every household
in the US. It's read-only. We've gotten advice to
On Mon, Feb 22, 2016 at 2:38 PM, Seamus Abshere wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 22, 2016, at 06:30 PM, Melvin Davidson wrote:
> > However, at this time, there is no such option as SET READ ONLY in any
> version of PostgreSQL.
>
> I know.
>
> I am wondering if hypothetical read-only
On Mon, Feb 22, 2016, at 06:30 PM, Melvin Davidson wrote:
> However, at this time, there is no such option as SET READ ONLY in any
> version of PostgreSQL.
I know.
I am wondering if hypothetical read-only tables would make index-only
scans more possible by avoiding the need for row visibility
First of all, it would be really nice if you mentioned the version of
PostgreSQL and O/S when posing questions.
That being said, that wiki is a _discussion_, and as such, a suggestion on
how it "might" be implemented.
However, at this time, there is no such option as SET READ ONLY in any
version
hi,
https://wiki.postgresql.org/wiki/ReadOnlyTables mentions the possibility
of `ALTER TABLE table SET READ ONLY`.
Would this mean that row visibility checks could be skipped and thus
index-only scans much more common?
Thanks,
Seamus
--
Seamus Abshere, SCEA
+598 99 54 99 54