| From: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Satoshi Nagayasu <snaga(at)uptime(dot)jp> |
| Cc: | Tomas Vondra <tv(at)fuzzy(dot)cz>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: [rfc] overhauling pgstat.stat |
| Date: | 2013-09-05 05:29:14 |
| Message-ID: | 20130905052914.GA6067@eldon.alvh.no-ip.org |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Satoshi Nagayasu wrote:
> But, for now, I think we should have a real index for the
> statistics data because we already have several index storages,
> and it will allow us to minimize read/write operations.
>
> BTW, what kind of index would be preferred for this purpose?
> btree or hash?
I find it hard to get excited about using the AM interface for this
purpose. To me it makes a lot more sense to have separate, much
simpler code. We don't need any transactionality, user defined types,
user defined operators, or anything like that.
--
Álvaro Herrera http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Atri Sharma | 2013-09-05 07:36:35 | Re: [rfc] overhauling pgstat.stat |
| Previous Message | wangshuo | 2013-09-05 05:06:19 | Re: Is it necessary to rewrite table while increasing the scale of datatype numeric？ |