| From: | mark(at)mark(dot)mielke(dot)cc |
|---|---|
| To: | Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Gavin Sherry <swm(at)linuxworld(dot)com(dot)au>, Jie Zhang <jzhang(at)greenplum(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Bitmap index thoughts |
| Date: | 2006-12-27 20:44:36 |
| Message-ID: | 20061227204436.GA17687@mark.mielke.cc |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Wed, Dec 27, 2006 at 03:42:36PM +0000, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
> >I wonder what would happen if somebody implemented automatic index
> >exclusion conditions after use of an INDEX proved to be in the realm
> >of the worst case scenario? :-)
> I'm sorry, I don't understand that sentence...
I was joking about a rather magical automatic INDEX restriction
modifier. For example, if the index becomes large enough to matter
(100 Mbytes?) and any single key takes up more than, say, 20% of the
index, it might be cool if it would automatically add the value to
the restriction list, and prune the now wasted index records.
Sorry for inserting a silly joke in a serious discussion... :-)
Cheers,
mark
--
mark(at)mielke(dot)cc / markm(at)ncf(dot)ca / markm(at)nortel(dot)com __________________________
. . _ ._ . . .__ . . ._. .__ . . . .__ | Neighbourhood Coder
|\/| |_| |_| |/ |_ |\/| | |_ | |/ |_ |
| | | | | \ | \ |__ . | | .|. |__ |__ | \ |__ | Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
One ring to rule them all, one ring to find them, one ring to bring them all
and in the darkness bind them...
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Bruce Momjian | 2006-12-27 21:23:39 | Re: [BUGS] BUG #2846: inconsistent and confusing handling of |
| Previous Message | Roman Kononov | 2006-12-27 20:43:04 | Re: [BUGS] BUG #2846: inconsistent and confusing handling of underflows, |