On Thu, Aug 4, 2016 at 7:59 AM, Pavan Deolasee <pavan.deola...@gmail.com> wrote: > So marking the index would require us to mark both old and new index tuples > as requiring re-check. That requires an additional index scan to locate the > old row and then an additional write to force it to re-check, which is > algorithmically O(NlogN) on table size.
So, basically, I'm saying this isn't really O(NlogN), it's O(N), manifested in low-cardinality indexes. -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
