[PATCHES] ignore_killed_tuples is always true
I found IndexScanDesc->ignore_killed_tuples is always true. Is this still needed? Also, I cannot understand why gistgetmulti calls gistnext with ignore_killed_tuples = false. We can always ignore LP_DELETEed tuples, right? --- ITAGAKI Takahiro NTT Cyber Space Laboratories remove-ignore_killed_tuples.patch Description: Binary data ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 3: Have you checked our extensive FAQ? http://www.postgresql.org/docs/faq
Re: [PATCHES] ignore_killed_tuples is always true
ITAGAKI Takahiro <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > I found IndexScanDesc->ignore_killed_tuples is always true. > Is this still needed? What is the point of removing it? You cannot argue that saving one if-test per tuple is a worthwhile speedup. regards, tom lane ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 9: In versions below 8.0, the planner will ignore your desire to choose an index scan if your joining column's datatypes do not match
Re: [PATCHES] ignore_killed_tuples is always true
On 2/10/06, Tom Lane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > ITAGAKI Takahiro <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > I found IndexScanDesc->ignore_killed_tuples is always true. > > Is this still needed? > > What is the point of removing it? You cannot argue that saving > one if-test per tuple is a worthwhile speedup. > > regards, tom lane > to clean code? -- regards, Jaime Casanova (DBA: DataBase Aniquilator ;) ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 9: In versions below 8.0, the planner will ignore your desire to choose an index scan if your joining column's datatypes do not match
Re: [PATCHES] ignore_killed_tuples is always true
Jaime Casanova <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > On 2/10/06, Tom Lane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> What is the point of removing it? You cannot argue that saving >> one if-test per tuple is a worthwhile speedup. > to clean code? It's not saving any noticeable amount of code, and what it is doing is removing functionality we might want someday. It's not hard to imagine pgstattuple or VACUUM or other maintenance operations wanting to look at killed index entries. regards, tom lane ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 9: In versions below 8.0, the planner will ignore your desire to choose an index scan if your joining column's datatypes do not match
Re: [PATCHES] ignore_killed_tuples is always true
Tom Lane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > It's not saving any noticeable amount of code, and what it is doing > is removing functionality we might want someday. It's not hard to > imagine pgstattuple or VACUUM or other maintenance operations wanting > to look at killed index entries. I suggested it not for performance, but for simplicity of code. So if we still need it, I agree to leave it. Moreover, LP_DELETEed tuples might be useful for Bitmap NOT And/Or join, not only maintenance operations. Union-side of bitmap should not contain LP_DELETEed tuples, and Except-side should do. --- ITAGAKI Takahiro NTT Cyber Space Laboratories ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 2: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster
