< * Allow ORDER BY ... LIMIT 1 to select high/low value without sort or
> * Allow ORDER BY ... LIMIT # to select high/low value without sort or
868c868
< Right now, if no index exists, ORDER BY ... LIMIT 1 requires we sort
> Right now, if no index exists, ORDER BY ... LIMIT # requires we sort
870a871
> MIN/MAX already does this, but not for LIMIT > 1.
> * Allow ORDER BY ... LIMIT 1 to select high/low value without sort or
> index using a sequential scan for highest/lowest values
>
> Right now, if no index exists, ORDER BY ... LIMIT 1 requires we sort
> all values to return the high/low value. Instead The idea is to do a
> sequential scan to find the high/low value, thus avoiding the sort.
>
> One possible implementation is to start sequential scans from the lowest
> numbered buffer in the shared cache, and when reaching the end wrap
> around to the beginning, rather than always starting sequential scans
> at the start of the table.
< This allows vacuum to reclaim free space without requiring
< a sequential scan
> This allows vacuum to target specific pages for possible free space
> without requiring a sequential scan.
< * Consider parallel processing a single query
<
< This would involve using multiple threads or processes to do optimization,
< sorting, or execution of single query. The major advantage of such a
< feature would be to allow multiple CPUs to work together to process a
< single query.
<
< * Allow ORDER BY ... LIMIT 1 to select high/low value without sort or
< index using a sequential scan for highest/lowest values
<
< If only one value is needed, there is no need to sort the entire
< table. Instead a sequential scan could get the matching value.
<
< Solaris) might benefit from threading.
> Solaris) might benefit from threading. Also explore the idea of
> a single session using multiple threads to execute a query faster.
< Currently indexes do not have enough tuple tuple visibility
< information to allow data to be pulled from the index without
< also accessing the heap. One way to allow this is to set a bit
< to index tuples to indicate if a tuple is currently visible to
< all transactions when the first valid heap lookup happens. This
< bit would have to be cleared when a heap tuple is expired.
> Currently indexes do not have enough tuple visibility information
> to allow data to be pulled from the index without also accessing
> the heap. One way to allow this is to set a bit to index tuples
> to indicate if a tuple is currently visible to all transactions
> when the first valid heap lookup happens. This bit would have to
> be cleared when a heap tuple is expired.
< Bitmap indexes index single columns that can be combined with other bitmap
< indexes to dynamically create a composite index to match a specific query.
< Each index is a bitmap, and the bitmaps are bitwise AND'ed or OR'ed to be
< combined. They can index by tid or can be lossy requiring a scan of the
< heap page to find matching rows, or perhaps use a mixed solution where
< tids are recorded for pages with only a few matches and per-page bitmaps
< are used for more dense pages. Another idea is to use a 32-bit bitmap
< for every page and set a bit based on the item number mod(32).
> This feature allows separate indexes to be ANDed or ORed together. This
> is particularly useful for data warehousing applications that need to
> query the database in an many permutations. This feature scans an index
> and creates an in-memory bitmap, and allows that bitmap to be combined
> with other bitmap created in a similar way. The bitmap can either index
> all TIDs, or be lossy, meaning it records just page numbers and each
> page tuple has to be checked for validity in a separate pass.
