X-Original-To: pgsql-hackers-postgresql.org@localhost.postgresql.org Received: from localhost (unknown [64.117.224.130]) by svr1.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3602AD1B906 for ; Thu, 21 Aug 2003 22:38:26 -0300 (ADT) Received: from svr1.postgresql.org ([64.117.224.193]) by localhost (neptune.hub.org [64.117.224.130]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 27421-03 for ; Thu, 21 Aug 2003 22:37:58 -0300 (ADT) Received: from houston.familyhealth.com.au (unknown [203.59.48.253]) by svr1.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id EE697D1BA33 for ; Thu, 21 Aug 2003 22:37:52 -0300 (ADT) Received: from mars (work-40.internal [192.168.0.40]) by houston.familyhealth.com.au (8.12.9/8.12.9) with SMTP id h7M1bULt016336; Fri, 22 Aug 2003 09:37:32 +0800 (WST) (envelope-from chriskl@familyhealth.com.au) Message-ID: <00f201c3684e$6b943a40$2800a8c0@mars> From: "Christopher Kings-Lynne" To: "Stephan Szabo" , "Tom Lane" Cc: "Dani Oderbolz" , References: <20030821102627.C51705-100000@megazone.bigpanda.com> <25062.1061498540@sss.pgh.pa.us> Subject: Re: [SQL] "SELECT IN" Still Broken in 7.4b Date: Fri, 22 Aug 2003 09:40:45 +0800 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1158 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1165 X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at postgresql.org X-Archive-Number: 200308/974 X-Sequence-Number: 42631 > I'm toying with the notion of ripping out that logic and instead > building an in-memory hashtable of already-returned TIDs. This could > theoretically run out of memory if the multiple indexscan returns enough > tuples, but I think in practice that wouldn't happen because the planner > wouldn't choose an indexscan when very large numbers of tuples are being > selected. > > Comments? Sounds kind of like a bitmap index almost.. Chris