Re: 9.3 Pre-proposal: Range Merge Join
От | Simon Riggs |
---|---|
Тема | Re: 9.3 Pre-proposal: Range Merge Join |
Дата | |
Msg-id | CA+U5nMJ_c=AfoEmbceR_F8w8j_LYY+Ax0CLU8vjveDeYoFzEFg@mail.gmail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: 9.3 Pre-proposal: Range Merge Join (Jeff Davis <pgsql@j-davis.com>) |
Ответы |
Re: 9.3 Pre-proposal: Range Merge Join
Re: 9.3 Pre-proposal: Range Merge Join Re: 9.3 Pre-proposal: Range Merge Join |
Список | pgsql-hackers |
On Mon, Apr 16, 2012 at 9:12 PM, Jeff Davis <pgsql@j-davis.com> wrote: > That had occurred to me, but I was hesitant to only use temp indexes. It > still doesn't really offer a good solution when both sides of the join > are relatively large (because of random I/O). Also the build speed of > the index would be more important than it is now. The thing I like most about temp indexes is that they needn't be temporary. I'd like to see something along the lines of demand-created optional indexes, that we reclaim space/maintenance overhead on according to some cache management scheme. More space you have, the more of the important ones hang around. The rough same idea applies to materialised views. -- Simon Riggs http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: