| 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: | 2013-11-13 12:42:46 |
| Message-ID: | 1384346566182-5778125.post@n5.nabble.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Jeremy Harris wrote
> Surely there's good correlation between IMSI & IMEI, so have a separate
> table to translate one to (a group of) the others, and
> halve the indexes on your main table?
Yes; unfortunately not always both are available; but it's something
we are thinking about (it requires logic in the "inserting application"
that at the moment doesn't exist, but it is something that we'll
have to add sooner or later).
But in the end yes, trying to use less indexed-fields is a good path.
--
View this message in context: http://postgresql.1045698.n5.nabble.com/Fast-insertion-indexes-why-no-developments-tp5776227p5778125.html
Sent from the PostgreSQL - hackers mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Steve Singer | 2013-11-13 12:44:28 | Re: logical changeset generation v6.5 |
| Previous Message | Leonardo Francalanci | 2013-11-13 12:31:29 | Re: Fast insertion indexes: why no developments |