Re: gistchoose vs. bloat
От | Tom Lane |
---|---|
Тема | Re: gistchoose vs. bloat |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 1445.1358773569@sss.pgh.pa.us обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: gistchoose vs. bloat (Jeff Davis <pgsql@j-davis.com>) |
Ответы |
Re: gistchoose vs. bloat
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
Jeff Davis <pgsql@j-davis.com> writes: > On Mon, 2013-01-21 at 00:48 -0500, Tom Lane wrote: >> I looked at this patch. ISTM we should not have the option at all but >> just do it always. I cannot believe that always-go-left is ever a >> preferable strategy in the long run; the resulting imbalance in the >> index will surely kill any possible benefit. Even if there are some >> cases where it miraculously fails to lose, how many users are going to >> realize that applies to their case and make use of the option? > Sounds good to me. > If I remember correctly, there was also an argument that it may be > useful for repeatable test results. That's a little questionable for > performance (except in those cases where few penalties are identical > anyway), but could plausibly be useful for a crash report or something. Meh. There's already a random decision, in the equivalent place and for a comparable reason, in btree (cf _bt_findinsertloc). Nobody's ever complained about that being indeterminate, so I'm unconvinced that there's a market for it with gist. regards, tom lane
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: