On Tue, Nov 3, 2020 at 5:23 PM Jinbao Chen wrote:
>
> Hi Andres,
>
>
>
> > Yea, it's something we should improve. Have you checked if this has
>
> > performance impact for heap? Should we also consider planning costs?
>
> Since the visibility map is very small, all pages of the visibility map will
Hi Andres,
> Yea, it's something we should improve. Have you checked if this has
> performance impact for heap? Should we also consider planning costs?
Since the visibility map is very small, all pages of the visibility map will
usually reside in memory. The IO cost of accessing the visibilit
Hi,
On 2020-11-02 09:16:26 +, Jinbao Chen wrote:
> We directly call the heap function VM_ALL_VISIBLE in the
> IndexOnlyNext function. This is not in line with the design idea of
> table am. If the new storage type needs to implement index only
> scan, he must hack the IndexOnlyNext function.
We directly call the heap function VM_ALL_VISIBLE in the
IndexOnlyNext function. This is not in line with the design idea of
table am. If the new storage type needs to implement index only
scan, he must hack the IndexOnlyNext function.
So this patch add a new table am 'tid_visible' to test visibil
