| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Hannu Krosing <hannu(at)skype(dot)net> |
| Cc: | Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Martin Scholes <marty(at)iicolo(dot)com>, "Jonah H(dot) Harris" <jonah(dot)harris(at)gmail(dot)com>, Christopher Kings-Lynne <chris(dot)kings-lynne(at)calorieking(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: WAL Bypass for indexes |
| Date: | 2006-04-03 15:41:33 |
| Message-ID: | 14242.1144078893@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Hannu Krosing <hannu(at)skype(dot)net> writes:
> hel kenal peval, E, 2006-04-03 kell 09:55, kirjutas Tom Lane:
>> (2) Some of the index code is itself deliberately nondeterministic.
>> I'm thinking in particular of the move-right-or-not choice in
>> _bt_insertonpg() when there are many equal keys, but randomization is
>> in general a useful algorithmic technique that we'd have to forswear.
> Why can't we just order "many equal keys" by ctid ?
Why is that better? The bit of code mentioned above certainly isn't
going to benefit --- it will lose the opportunity to try to avoid a page
split.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Robert Watson | 2006-04-03 15:49:52 | Re: semaphore usage "port based"? |
| Previous Message | Hannu Krosing | 2006-04-03 15:33:57 | Re: WAL Bypass for indexes |