Re: Fast insertion indexes: why no developments
От | Simon Riggs |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Fast insertion indexes: why no developments |
Дата | |
Msg-id | CA+U5nMLfp7X2yPt8nzU1MvF_yqp7As7Pco_g7SsgGPk+y6bOhg@mail.gmail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: Fast insertion indexes: why no developments (Claudio Freire <klaussfreire@gmail.com>) |
Список | pgsql-hackers |
On 12 November 2013 19:54, Claudio Freire <klaussfreire@gmail.com> wrote: > On Tue, Nov 12, 2013 at 7:14 PM, Simon Riggs <simon@2ndquadrant.com> wrote: >> I still think we need to look at this from a query perspective though. >> We need to check whether there is a class of real world queries that >> are not well optimised by minmax indexes, or cannot be made to be in >> future releases. For example, large DELETEs from a table are almost >> trivially optimised for min max. > > Only if you don't have a PK (or other index). Right. Min max indexes are optimised for large DELETEs, btrees are not (yet), which is what we are discussing. I believe it remains to be shown that a btree is actually desirable on a very big table. So far the discussion has just assumed this is the case, without looking at specific SQL. It might be better to look at ways of avoiding a btree altogether than to spend time optimising btrees for this case. Perhaps we can enforce a PK constraint without using a btree, if one is required. This might be guaranteed by using a sequence or other mechanism. -- Simon Riggs http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: