Gaetano Mendola <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Tom Lane wrote:
>> I have committed a fix into 7.5devel to do this properly. I think this
>> is the last case wherein btree is unnecessarily inefficient for large
>> numbers of equal keys.
> Any chance to have it on 7.4.1 ?
No. It's inadequately tes
Tom Lane wrote:
I have committed a fix into 7.5devel to do this properly. I think this
is the last case wherein btree is unnecessarily inefficient for large
numbers of equal keys.
Any chance to have it on 7.4.1 ?
Regards
Gaetano Mendola
---(end of broadcast)---
Tom Lane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Dmitry Tkach <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> This is because there are *lots* (a few million) of matches for x=10,
>> and _bt_first () scans through them *all* sequentually to get to the
>> last one.
> It's not a bug, but I agree that _bt_first can be ineffi
Is this a TODO?
---
Tom Lane wrote:
> [ reply redirected to a more appropriate list ]
>
> Dmitry Tkach <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > I am not sure if this is really a bug, but it certainly looks like one
> > to me...
>
[ reply redirected to a more appropriate list ]
Dmitry Tkach <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I am not sure if this is really a bug, but it certainly looks like one
> to me...
It's not a bug, but I agree that _bt_first can be inefficient if there
are lots of matching keys.
> This is because there
