From: | Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, Jeff Janes <jeff(dot)janes(at)gmail(dot)com>, Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Hash Indexes |
Date: | 2016-09-21 19:12:43 |
Message-ID: | 20160921191243.GA7630@momjian.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Wed, Sep 21, 2016 at 08:29:59AM -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
> Of course, if we want to implement clustered indexes, that's going to
> require significant changes to the heap format ... or the ability to
> support multiple heap storage formats. I'm not opposed to that, but I
> think it makes sense to fix the existing implementation first.
For me, there are several measurements for indexes:
Build time
INSERT / UPDATE overhead
Storage size
Access speed
I am guessing people make conclusions based on their Computer Science
education.
--
Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> http://momjian.us
EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com
+ As you are, so once was I. As I am, so you will be. +
+ Ancient Roman grave inscription +
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Robert Haas | 2016-09-21 19:35:44 | Re: Hash Indexes |
Previous Message | David Fetter | 2016-09-21 18:46:24 | Re: New SQL counter statistics view (pg_stat_sql) |