Re: Fast insertion indexes: why no developments

From: Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com>
To: Merlin Moncure <mmoncure(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: Leonardo Francalanci <m_lists(at)yahoo(dot)it>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Fast insertion indexes: why no developments
Date: 2013-11-13 15:16:30
Message-ID: CA+U5nMLRTviShk4AE+m=sVYak0AmFLa7uJ8mi+wztJ0M2=NCvA@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On 13 November 2013 11:54, Merlin Moncure <mmoncure(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:

>> Load time
>> MinMax no overhead, same as raw COPY
>> BTree - considerably slower

And just as a general comment, the min max index does not slow down
COPY as the table gets larger, whereas the btree gets slower as the
table gets larger. Which is the reason Leonardo requires partitioned
tables.

--
Simon Riggs http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Bruce Momjian 2013-11-13 15:16:32 Idea for debug/recovery snapshots
Previous Message Bruce Momjian 2013-11-13 15:14:19 Re: MVCC snapshot timing