From: Mark Kirkwood <markir@paradise.net.nz>
To: K C Lau <kclau60@netvigator.com>
Cc: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: SELECT LIMIT 1 VIEW Performance Issue
Date: Sat, 24 Sep 2005 17:14:59 +1200
Message-ID: <4334E0D3.1080504@paradise.net.nz> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <6.2.1.2.0.20050924105728.05388920@localhost>
References: <6EE64EF3AB31D5448D0007DD34EEB3417DD406@Herge.rcsinc.local>
<6.2.1.2.0.20050923155952.05889a50@localhost>
<4334AE89.8060806@paradise.net.nz>
<6.2.1.2.0.20050924105728.05388920@localhost>
K C Lau wrote:
> I'm wondering if this performance issue is common enough for other users
> to merit a fix in pg, especially as it seems that with MVCC, each of the
> data records need to be accessed in addition to scanning the index.
>
Yes - there are certainly cases where index only access (or something
similar, like b+tree tables) would be highly desirable.
From what I have understood from previous discussions, there are
difficulties involved with producing a design that does not cause new
problems...
regards
Mark
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-performance@postgresql.org
Cc: markir@paradise.net.nz, kclau60@netvigator.com
Subject: Re: SELECT LIMIT 1 VIEW Performance Issue
In-Reply-To: <4334E0D3.1080504@paradise.net.nz>
* 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