On Fri, Feb 18, 2011 at 1:36 PM, Heikki Linnakangas
heikki.linnakan...@enterprisedb.com wrote:
On 18.02.2011 17:02, Gurjeet Singh wrote:
Another use case of the Index Advisor is to be switched on for a few hours
while the application runs, and gather the recommendations for the whole
run.
On Fri, Feb 18, 2011 at 2:27 AM, Heikki Linnakangas
heikki.linnakan...@enterprisedb.com wrote:
On 17.02.2011 14:30, Gurjeet Singh wrote:
On Wed, Feb 16, 2011 at 6:37 PM, Tom Lanet...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
Fetch the values you need and stuff 'em in the struct. Don't expect
relcache to do
On 18.02.2011 17:02, Gurjeet Singh wrote:
On Fri, Feb 18, 2011 at 2:27 AM, Heikki Linnakangas
heikki.linnakan...@enterprisedb.com wrote:
On 17.02.2011 14:30, Gurjeet Singh wrote:
On Wed, Feb 16, 2011 at 6:37 PM, Tom Lanet...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
Fetch the values you need and stuff 'em in
Heikki Linnakangas heikki.linnakan...@enterprisedb.com writes:
On 18.02.2011 17:02, Gurjeet Singh wrote:
On Wed, Feb 16, 2011 at 6:37 PM, Tom Lanet...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
Fetch the values you need and stuff 'em in the struct. Don't expect
relcache to do it for you.
I also wish to make
On Wed, Feb 16, 2011 at 6:37 PM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
Gurjeet Singh singh.gurj...@gmail.com writes:
On Wed, Feb 16, 2011 at 10:25 AM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
The only reason you'd need that code is if you were trying to construct
a fake Relation structure, which
On 17.02.2011 14:30, Gurjeet Singh wrote:
On Wed, Feb 16, 2011 at 6:37 PM, Tom Lanet...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
Gurjeet Singhsingh.gurj...@gmail.com writes:
On Wed, Feb 16, 2011 at 10:25 AM, Tom Lanet...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
The only reason you'd need that code is if you were trying to
On Tue, Feb 15, 2011 at 11:59 AM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
Gurjeet Singh singh.gurj...@gmail.com writes:
Also attached is the patch expose_IndexSupportInitialize.patch, that
makes
the static function IndexSupportInitialize() global so that the Index
Advisor doesn't have to
On Tue, Feb 15, 2011 at 12:51 PM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
Gurjeet Singh singh.gurj...@gmail.com writes:
On Tue, Feb 15, 2011 at 8:24 AM, Heikki Linnakangas
heikki.linnakan...@enterprisedb.com wrote:
On 11.02.2011 22:44, Gurjeet Singh wrote:
One one hand
Gurjeet Singh singh.gurj...@gmail.com writes:
I understand that we need to hide guts of an implementation. But without
this the Index Advisor will have to emulate what LookupOpclassInfo() does
and that's a lot of code that I am afraid, if emulated by another function
in Index Advisor, is more
Gurjeet Singh singh.gurj...@gmail.com writes:
BTW, you use the term 'fictitious' in the comments, would it be better
to standardize the term used for such an index? So either the comment would
be changed to call it hypothetical, or the structure member would be changed
to isfictitious.
On Wed, Feb 16, 2011 at 10:25 AM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
Gurjeet Singh singh.gurj...@gmail.com writes:
I understand that we need to hide guts of an implementation. But without
this the Index Advisor will have to emulate what LookupOpclassInfo() does
and that's a lot of code
On Wed, Feb 16, 2011 at 10:26 AM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
Gurjeet Singh singh.gurj...@gmail.com writes:
BTW, you use the term 'fictitious' in the comments, would it be
better
to standardize the term used for such an index? So either the comment
would
be changed to call it
Gurjeet Singh singh.gurj...@gmail.com writes:
On Wed, Feb 16, 2011 at 10:25 AM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
The only reason you'd need that code is if you were trying to construct
a fake Relation structure, which seems unnecessary and undesirable.
The planner requires IndexOptInfo, and
Gurjeet Singh singh.gurj...@gmail.com writes:
On Wed, Feb 16, 2011 at 10:26 AM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
Yeah, hypothetical is the more-established term I think.
Please find the patch attached.
Applied with minor adjustments to HEAD and 9.0.
regards, tom
On 16 February 2011 23:02, Gurjeet Singh singh.gurj...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Feb 16, 2011 at 10:26 AM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
Gurjeet Singh singh.gurj...@gmail.com writes:
BTW, you use the term 'fictitious' in the comments, would it be
better
to standardize the term
Thom Brown t...@linux.com writes:
For my benefit, could you explain how ishypothetical gets set to true?
In the core, it never does. An index advisor plugin would set it in
IndexOptInfo structs that it makes.
regards, tom lane
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list
On 17 February 2011 00:48, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
Thom Brown t...@linux.com writes:
For my benefit, could you explain how ishypothetical gets set to true?
In the core, it never does. An index advisor plugin would set it in
IndexOptInfo structs that it makes.
I get the idea.
On Wed, Feb 16, 2011 at 7:25 PM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
Gurjeet Singh singh.gurj...@gmail.com writes:
On Wed, Feb 16, 2011 at 10:26 AM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
Yeah, hypothetical is the more-established term I think.
Please find the patch attached.
Applied with
On 11.02.2011 22:44, Gurjeet Singh wrote:
Looks like the function get_actual_variable_range() was written with the
knowledge that virtual/hypothetical indexes may exist, but the assumption
seems wrong.
One one hand get_actual_variable_range() expects that virtual indexes do not
have an OID
On Tue, Feb 15, 2011 at 8:24 AM, Heikki Linnakangas
heikki.linnakan...@enterprisedb.com wrote:
On 11.02.2011 22:44, Gurjeet Singh wrote:
Looks like the function get_actual_variable_range() was written with the
knowledge that virtual/hypothetical indexes may exist, but the assumption
seems
Gurjeet Singh singh.gurj...@gmail.com writes:
Also attached is the patch expose_IndexSupportInitialize.patch, that makes
the static function IndexSupportInitialize() global so that the Index
Advisor doesn't have to reinvent the wheel to prepare an index structure
with opfamilies and opclasses.
Gurjeet Singh singh.gurj...@gmail.com writes:
On Tue, Feb 15, 2011 at 8:24 AM, Heikki Linnakangas
heikki.linnakan...@enterprisedb.com wrote:
On 11.02.2011 22:44, Gurjeet Singh wrote:
One one hand get_actual_variable_range() expects that virtual indexes do
not
have an OID assigned, on the
Looks like the function get_actual_variable_range() was written with the
knowledge that virtual/hypothetical indexes may exist, but the assumption
seems wrong.
One one hand get_actual_variable_range() expects that virtual indexes do not
have an OID assigned, on the other hand
23 matches
Mail list logo
