Andres Freund <and...@anarazel.de> writes:
> On 2018-12-22 12:20:00 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
>> I like that idea a *lot*, actually, because it offers the opportunity
>> to decouple this mechanism from all assumptions about what the
>> auxiliary data for a keyword is.
> OTOH, it doubles or triples the number of cachelines accessed when
> encountering a keyword.
Compared to what? The current situation in that regard is a mess.
Also, AFAICS this proposal involves the least amount of data touched
during the lookup phase of anything we've discussed, so I do not even
accept that your criticism is correct. One extra cacheline fetch
to get the aux data for a particular keyword after the search is not
going to tip the scales away from this being a win.
regards, tom lane
