From: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> |
Cc: | Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: WARM and indirect indexes |
Date: | 2017-01-11 02:36:24 |
Message-ID: | 20170111023624.4tt6h46k3cqfdiym@alvherre.pgsql |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Bruce Momjian wrote:
> 1. What percentage speedup is the _average_ user going to get? You
> have to consider people who will use indirect indexes who get no benefit
> or a net slowdown, and users who will get a benefit.
>
> 2. What percentage of users are going to use indirect indexes?
>
> So, for #1 you might have users who are getting +1%, +50%, and -20%, so
> maybe +10% average, and for #2 you might have 0.1%. When you multiply
> them out, you get 0.01% average improvement per installation, which is
> very small. Obviously, these are just wild guesses, but this is just to
> make a point.
Perhaps not many users will require indirect indexes; but for those that
do, the feature might be invaluable. We don't do only things that
benefit everybody -- some features are there to satisfy small
populations ("snapshot too old" is a recent example). We should of
course do, and perhaps even favor doing things that benefit everybody,
but should also do the other things.
--
Álvaro Herrera https://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Bruce Momjian | 2017-01-11 02:49:30 | Re: WARM and indirect indexes |
Previous Message | Bruce Momjian | 2017-01-11 02:25:05 | Re: WARM and indirect indexes |