From: Dmitry Dolgov <9erthalion6@gmail.com>
To: Andy Fan <zhihui.fan1213@gmail.com>
Cc: Floris Van Nee <florisvannee@optiver.com>
Cc: Dilip Kumar <dilipbalaut@gmail.com>
Cc: David Rowley <dgrowleyml@gmail.com>
Cc: Kyotaro Horiguchi <horikyota.ntt@gmail.com>
Cc: Tomas Vondra <tomas.vondra@2ndquadrant.com>
Cc: Peter Geoghegan <pg@bowt.ie>
Cc: Jesper Pedersen <jesper.pedersen@redhat.com>
Cc: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@2ndquadrant.com>
Cc: Thomas Munro <thomas.munro@gmail.com>
Cc: James Coleman <jtc331@gmail.com>
Cc: Rafia Sabih <rafia.pghackers@gmail.com>
Cc: Jeff Janes <jeff.janes@gmail.com>
Cc: bhushan.uparkar@gmail.com <bhushan.uparkar@gmail.com>
Cc: PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>
Cc: Alexander Korotkov <a.korotkov@postgrespro.ru>
Subject: Re: Index Skip Scan
Date: Tue, 2 Jun 2020 15:40:06 +0200
Message-ID: <20200602132124.v6orhdvxjecbkmkh@localhost> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAKU4AWrWO6K375iuy_AYPg5eQPV3ikGyZxxt=azqt2j07opchQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <20200325085100.5fixaiteuoln4f45@localhost>
<CAFiTN-sgsxS7cXi0sd9UWmbSwjPc6+78rGa4SFfAxGfs5zj7Aw@mail.gmail.com>
<20200405161029.fpqqll7xbgfqy5na@localhost>
<CAFiTN-sRnYp7MkctzYakyjWRPQQHFzEAwKV8vwf+sUgA+8JtQw@mail.gmail.com>
<80ef5f0744f542b18e508fb589a6425a@opammb0562.comp.optiver.com>
<CAFiTN-tp8S3BTwYXT33tnY=53fNCsS4ZZUjbEFtcJym1acoLeA@mail.gmail.com>
<20200406163941.rh3okji2rhbnptyt@localhost>
<8abe43ac82714c2f9044fb8bac0ebfd0@opammb0562.comp.optiver.com>
<20200407194220.edf4nbi7l4cpxk4v@localhost>
<CAKU4AWrWO6K375iuy_AYPg5eQPV3ikGyZxxt=azqt2j07opchQ@mail.gmail.com>
> On Tue, Jun 02, 2020 at 08:36:31PM +0800, Andy Fan wrote:
>
> > Other than that to summarize current open points for future readers
> > (this thread somehow became quite big):
> >
> > * Making UniqueKeys usage more generic to allow using skip scan for more
> > use cases (hopefully it was covered by the v33, but I still need a
> > confirmation from David, like blinking twice or something).
> >
> > * Suspicious performance difference between different type of workload,
> > mentioned by Tomas (unfortunately I had no chance yet to investigate).
> >
> > * Thinking about supporting conditions, that are not covered by the index,
> > to make skipping more flexible (one of the potential next steps in the
> > future, as suggested by Floris).
> >
>
> Looks this is the latest patch, which commit it is based on? Thanks
I have a rebased version, if you're about it. Didn't posted it yet
mostly since I'm in the middle of adapting it to the UniqueKeys from
other thread. Would it be ok for you to wait a bit until I'll post
finished version?
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Reply to all the recipients using the --to and --cc options:
reply via email
To: pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org
Cc: 9erthalion6@gmail.com, zhihui.fan1213@gmail.com, florisvannee@optiver.com, dilipbalaut@gmail.com, dgrowleyml@gmail.com, horikyota.ntt@gmail.com, tomas.vondra@2ndquadrant.com, pg@bowt.ie, jesper.pedersen@redhat.com, alvherre@2ndquadrant.com, thomas.munro@gmail.com, jtc331@gmail.com, rafia.pghackers@gmail.com, jeff.janes@gmail.com, bhushan.uparkar@gmail.com, a.korotkov@postgrespro.ru
Subject: Re: Index Skip Scan
In-Reply-To: <20200602132124.v6orhdvxjecbkmkh@localhost>
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
This inbox is served by DDX for PostgreSQL; see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox