| From: | Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Manfred Koizar <mkoi-pg(at)aon(dot)at>, pgsql-patches(at)postgresql(dot)org, ohp(at)pyrenet(dot)fr, pgsql-hackers list <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: [HACKERS] Index creation takes for ever |
| Date: | 2004-03-17 02:18:13 |
| Message-ID: | 200403170218.i2H2IDE19552@candle.pha.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers pgsql-patches |
Tom Lane wrote:
> Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> writes:
> > If I remember correctly, you didn't like the index routines reading the
> > tuple information, or something like that, but there was a performance
> > benefit for duplicate keys, so I think we should re-investigate this.
>
> I don't see the actual patch either in the hackers or patches archives,
> nor on your to-apply pages, making it a bit difficult to re-investigate.
> Where was it posted anyway?
Found it:
Personally, because frequently accessed duplicates appear more forward
in the duplicate index, I think the sorting is only valuable when
creating a new index.
--
Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us
pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us | (610) 359-1001
+ If your life is a hard drive, | 13 Roberts Road
+ Christ can be your backup. | Newtown Square, Pennsylvania 19073
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Christopher Kings-Lynne | 2004-03-17 02:39:57 | Re: Some one deleted pg_database entry how to fix it? |
| Previous Message | Bruce Momjian | 2004-03-17 01:56:16 | Re: Doxygen? |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Neil Conway | 2004-03-17 03:11:20 | Re: introduce "default_use_oids" |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2004-03-17 01:55:20 | Re: [HACKERS] Index creation takes for ever |