| From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Claudio Freire <klaussfreire(at)gmail(dot)com>, Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)heroku(dot)com>, Leonardo Francalanci <m_lists(at)yahoo(dot)it>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Fast insertion indexes: why no developments |
| Date: | 2013-11-04 16:35:07 |
| Message-ID: | CA+TgmoaHZa9GHP9jRAJryA1oN0zDAqOS9ukf2jpiJHrDG3N99g@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Mon, Nov 4, 2013 at 11:32 AM, Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> wrote:
> I think doing this outside of s_b will make stuff rather hard for
> physical replication and crash recovery since we either will need to
> flush the whole buffer at checkpoints - which is hard since the
> checkpointer doesn't work inside individual databases - or we need to
> persist the in-memory buffer across restart which also sucks.
You might be right, but I think part of the value of LSM-trees is that
the in-memory portion of the data structure is supposed to be able to
be optimized for in-memory storage rather than on disk storage. It
may be that block-structuring that data bleeds away much of the
performance benefit. Of course, I'm talking out of my rear end here:
I don't really have a clue how these algorithms are supposed to work.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Stephen Frost | 2013-11-04 16:45:43 | Re: Removal of archive in wal_level |
| Previous Message | Andres Freund | 2013-11-04 16:32:49 | Re: Fast insertion indexes: why no developments |