From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> |
Cc: | Dimitri Fontaine <dimitri(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)fr>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Save Hash Indexes |
Date: | 2013-11-01 14:43:58 |
Message-ID: | 10897.1383317038@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> writes:
> Yeah, and there's this: I've had at least one client who switched to
> using hash indexes and got a significant benefit from it precisely
> because they aren't WAL logged. They could afford to rebuild the indexes
> in the unlikely event of a crash, but the IO gain was worth it to them.
> Neither could they have tolerated unlogged tables - they wanted crash
> safety for their data. After talking through the various options with
> them they decided this was the best choice, and it might be sad to
> remove that choice from people.
That's an interesting story, but it seems like what it points to is the
need for a general "unlogged index" feature, rather than depending on
what's universally agreed to be an implementation deficiency of hash
indexes. So it sounds like an independent topic.
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Kevin Grittner | 2013-11-01 14:45:58 | Re: Cannot create matview when referencing another not-populated-yet matview in subquery |
Previous Message | Andrew Dunstan | 2013-11-01 14:16:42 | Re: Save Hash Indexes |