Re: prefix btree implementation

From: "Jim C(dot) Nasby" <jnasby(at)pervasive(dot)com>
To: Qingqing Zhou <zhouqq(at)cs(dot)toronto(dot)edu>
Cc: pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: prefix btree implementation
Date: 2005-10-06 21:31:27
Message-ID: 20051006213127.GG36108@pervasive.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Wed, Oct 05, 2005 at 03:40:43PM -0700, Qingqing Zhou wrote:
> We do the prefix sharing when we build up index only, never on the fly.

So are you saying that inserts of new data wouldn't make any use of
this? ISTM that greatly reduces the usefulness, though I'm not objecting
because compression during build is probably better than none at all. Is
there a technical reason compression can't be used during normal
operations?
--
Jim C. Nasby, Sr. Engineering Consultant jnasby(at)pervasive(dot)com
Pervasive Software http://pervasive.com work: 512-231-6117
vcard: http://jim.nasby.net/pervasive.vcf cell: 512-569-9461

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Martijn van Oosterhout 2005-10-06 21:40:17 Re: [PERFORM] A Better External Sort?
Previous Message Neil Conway 2005-10-06 21:23:57 Re: [HACKERS] Best practices: MERGE