| From: | Leonardo Francalanci <m_lists(at)yahoo(dot)it> |
|---|---|
| To: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Fast insertion indexes: why no developments |
| Date: | 2013-11-05 08:32:34 |
| Message-ID: | 1383640354061-5776964.post@n5.nabble.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Simon Riggs wrote
> Everybody on this thread is advised to look closely at Min Max indexes
> before starting any further work.
>
> MinMax will give us access to many new kinds of plan, plus they are
> about as close to perfectly efficient, by which I mean almost zero
> overhead, with regard to inserts as it is possible to get.
Simon, I don't understand how minmax indexes would help in a random-inserts
scenario.
While I would love to use minmax for other columns (since we also partition
and search based on a timestamp, which is usually well clustered), I thought
minmax index would be perfect in a mostly-incremental values scenario.
--
View this message in context: http://postgresql.1045698.n5.nabble.com/Fast-insertion-indexes-why-no-developments-tp5776227p5776964.html
Sent from the PostgreSQL - hackers mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Albe Laurenz | 2013-11-05 08:52:04 | Re: UTF8 national character data type support WIP patch and list of open issues. |
| Previous Message | Leonardo Francalanci | 2013-11-05 08:25:34 | Re: Fast insertion indexes: why no developments |