From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Jeff Davis <pgsql(at)j-davis(dot)com> |
Cc: | Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnakangas(at)vmware(dot)com>, Alexander Korotkov <aekorotkov(at)gmail(dot)com>, Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: gistchoose vs. bloat |
Date: | 2013-01-21 13:06:09 |
Message-ID: | 1445.1358773569@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Jeff Davis <pgsql(at)j-davis(dot)com> writes:
> On Mon, 2013-01-21 at 00:48 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
>> I looked at this patch. ISTM we should not have the option at all but
>> just do it always. I cannot believe that always-go-left is ever a
>> preferable strategy in the long run; the resulting imbalance in the
>> index will surely kill any possible benefit. Even if there are some
>> cases where it miraculously fails to lose, how many users are going to
>> realize that applies to their case and make use of the option?
> Sounds good to me.
> If I remember correctly, there was also an argument that it may be
> useful for repeatable test results. That's a little questionable for
> performance (except in those cases where few penalties are identical
> anyway), but could plausibly be useful for a crash report or something.
Meh. There's already a random decision, in the equivalent place and for
a comparable reason, in btree (cf _bt_findinsertloc). Nobody's ever
complained about that being indeterminate, so I'm unconvinced that
there's a market for it with gist.
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Craig Ringer | 2013-01-21 13:06:35 | Re: Visual Studio 2012 RC |
Previous Message | Craig Ringer | 2013-01-21 13:00:57 | Re: Making testing on Windows easier |