Received: from malur.postgresql.org ([217.196.149.56]) by arkaria.postgresql.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1bwtwW-0000I5-OB for pgsql-hackers@arkaria.postgresql.org; Wed, 19 Oct 2016 16:42:16 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=postgresql.org) by malur.postgresql.org with smtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1bwtwV-0001sA-Uz for pgsql-hackers@arkaria.postgresql.org; Wed, 19 Oct 2016 16:42:15 +0000 Received: from makus.postgresql.org ([2001:4800:1501:1::229]) by malur.postgresql.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1bwtv7-0000Hd-4J for pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org; Wed, 19 Oct 2016 16:40:49 +0000 Received: from momjian.us ([72.94.173.45]) by makus.postgresql.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:256) (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1bwtv4-0003jk-68 for pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org; Wed, 19 Oct 2016 16:40:47 +0000 Received: from bruce by momjian.us with local (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1bwtv1-0004tS-EX; Wed, 19 Oct 2016 12:40:43 -0400 Date: Wed, 19 Oct 2016 12:40:43 -0400 From: Bruce Momjian To: Pavan Deolasee Cc: Alexander Korotkov , Robert Haas , Alvaro Herrera , Pg Hackers Subject: Re: Indirect indexes Message-ID: <20161019164043.GN5087@momjian.us> References: <20161018182843.xczrxsa2yd47pnru@alvherre.pgsql> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.23 (2014-03-12) X-Pg-Spam-Score: -2.2 (--) List-Archive: List-Help: List-ID: List-Owner: List-Post: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Mailing-List: pgsql-hackers Precedence: bulk Sender: pgsql-hackers-owner@postgresql.org On Wed, Oct 19, 2016 at 07:23:28PM +0530, Pavan Deolasee wrote: > AFAICS, even without considering VACUUM, indirect indexes would be always > used with recheck. > As long as they don't contain visibility information.  When indirect > indexed column was updated, indirect index would refer same PK with > different index keys. > There is no direct link between indirect index tuple and heap tuple, only > logical link using PK.  Thus, you would anyway have to recheck. > > > > I agree. Also, I think the recheck mechanism will have to be something like > what I wrote for WARM i.e. only checking for index quals won't be enough and we > would actually need to verify that the heap tuple satisfies the key in the > indirect index.  I personally would like to see how far we get with WARM before adding this feature that requires a DBA to evaluate and enable it. -- Bruce Momjian http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com + As you are, so once was I. As I am, so you will be. + + Ancient Roman grave inscription + -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers