| From: | "Jim C(dot) Nasby" <jim(at)nasby(dot)net> |
|---|---|
| To: | Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, Pavan Deolasee <pavan(dot)deolasee(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: CREATE INDEX and HOT (was Question: pg_classattributes and race conditions ?) |
| Date: | 2007-03-22 18:22:00 |
| Message-ID: | 20070322182200.GB72669@nasby.net |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Mon, Mar 19, 2007 at 12:05:19PM +0000, Simon Riggs wrote:
> I was unwilling to compromise to have HOT if only one index existed, but
> IMHO allowing HOT with <= 3 indexes is an acceptable compromise for this
> release. (We can always use vertical partitioning techniques to allow
> additional access paths to be added to the same table - I'd be very
> happy to document that with worked examples, if requried).
I'm not sure where we're sitting with this, but I've got another idea I
haven't seen (one that I think is better than an arbitrary limit on the
number of indexes)... what if we just disallow non-concurrent index
builds on hot tables? It sounds like the additional pain involved in
chilling an entire table and keeping it chilled for the index build is
even more overhead than just doing a concurrent index build.
--
Jim Nasby jim(at)nasby(dot)net
EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com 512.569.9461 (cell)
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Bruce Momjian | 2007-03-22 18:26:48 | Re: CREATE INDEX and HOT - revised design |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2007-03-22 18:13:48 | Re: "Relation not found" error but table exits. |