On Wed, Mar 25, 2015 at 11:07 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> Anastasia Lubennikova writes:
> > 2015-03-24 18:01 GMT+04:00 Tom Lane :
> >> I wonder whether it'd be possible to teach GIN to support index_getnext
> >> instead. Initially it would probably work only for cases where the
> >> index didn't have
Anastasia Lubennikova writes:
> 2015-03-24 18:01 GMT+04:00 Tom Lane :
>> I wonder whether it'd be possible to teach GIN to support index_getnext
>> instead. Initially it would probably work only for cases where the
>> index didn't have to return any columns ... but if we did it, maybe the
>> door
2015-03-24 18:01 GMT+04:00 Tom Lane :
> Anastasia Lubennikova writes:
> > There is a problem of slow counting in PostgreSQL [1]. The reason why
> this
> > is slow is related to the *MVCC* implementation in PostgreSQL. Index-only
> > scans (implemented since PostgreSQL-9.2) providing some performa
Anastasia Lubennikova writes:
> There is a problem of slow counting in PostgreSQL [1]. The reason why this
> is slow is related to the *MVCC* implementation in PostgreSQL. Index-only
> scans (implemented since PostgreSQL-9.2) providing some performance
> improvements where the *visibility map* of
Hi, hackers!
Here is the text of my proposal which I've applied to GSoC.
(and link
http://www.google-melange.com/gsoc/proposal/public/google/gsoc2015/lubennikovaav/5657382461898752
)
Any suggestions and comments are welcome.
*Project name*
Bitmap Index-only Count
*Brief review*
There is a p
