| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Manfred Koizar <mkoi-pg(at)aon(dot)at>, pgsql-patches(at)postgresql(dot)org, ohp(at)pyrenet(dot)fr, pgsql-hackers list <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: [HACKERS] Index creation takes for ever |
| Date: | 2004-03-17 16:36:59 |
| Message-ID: | 25685.1079541419@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers pgsql-patches |
Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> writes:
> Tom Lane wrote:
>> Where was it posted anyway?
> Found it:
Thanks. The original patch is much older than I thought --- I was
looking in the November/December part of the archives.
> Personally, because frequently accessed duplicates appear more forward
> in the duplicate index, I think the sorting is only valuable when
> creating a new index.
Yes, and that's what this does. Looking back, the original discussion
got a little confused because the TODO item about "order duplicate index
entries by tid" got brought into the mix. Actually this patch has
nothing to do with that, because it only acts during btree creation not
during index updates.
On inspection I have no problem with the patch, only with the comments ;-)
If you like I'll revise the comments and apply.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Josh Berkus | 2004-03-17 16:53:32 | Re: Constraints & pg_dump |
| Previous Message | Fernando Nasser | 2004-03-17 16:11:18 | Re: COPY formatting |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Bruce Momjian | 2004-03-17 17:02:11 | Re: [HACKERS] Index creation takes for ever |
| Previous Message | Bruce Momjian | 2004-03-17 13:13:43 | Re: Another pg_autovacuum patch |