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