Re: non-WAL btree?

From: Alex Vinogradovs <AVinogradovs(at)Clearpathnet(dot)com>
To: David Wilson <david(dot)t(dot)wilson(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: Joshua Drake <jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com>, pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: non-WAL btree?
Date: 2008-08-01 20:36:40
Message-ID: 1217623000.79373.59.camel@localhost
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-general

It's not that I expect a lot of improvement by having non-WAL
indexing, it just sounds logical to me to have that, since
index can be re-created fast enough during recovery, and it
would reduce my IO to some extent.

Alex.

> Sorry, as I hit send, I realized I should clarify this: I do my bulk
> loads with the indexes active; I don't rebuild them (as they're
> necessary during the batch calculations). Dropping the indexes and
> using test data didn't show a significant performance improvement over
> leaving the indexes enabled.
>

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-general by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Francisco Reyes 2008-08-01 20:50:21 Re: non-WAL btree?
Previous Message Alex Vinogradovs 2008-08-01 20:32:23 Re: non-WAL btree?