| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com> |
| Cc: | "Jonah H(dot) Harris" <jonah(dot)harris(at)gmail(dot)com>, Alex Hunsaker <badalex(at)gmail(dot)com>, Kenneth Marshall <ktm(at)rice(dot)edu>, Xiao Meng <mx(dot)cogito(at)gmail(dot)com>, Zdenek Kotala <Zdenek(dot)Kotala(at)sun(dot)com>, pgsql-patches(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: hash index improving v3 |
| Date: | 2008-09-23 13:13:14 |
| Message-ID: | 26331.1222175594@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers pgsql-patches |
Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com> writes:
> Thinks: Why not just sort all of the time and skip the debate entirely?
The sort is demonstrably a loser for smaller indexes. Admittedly,
if the index is small then the sort can't cost all that much, but if
the (correct) threshold is some large fraction of shared_buffers then
it could still take awhile on installations with lots-o-buffers.
The other side of that coin is that it's not clear this is really worth
arguing about, much less exposing a separate parameter for.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Gregory Stark | 2008-09-23 13:16:02 | Re: Common Table Expressions (WITH RECURSIVE) patch |
| Previous Message | Simon Riggs | 2008-09-23 13:05:15 | Re: hash index improving v3 |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Simon Riggs | 2008-09-23 13:27:02 | Re: hash index improving v3 |
| Previous Message | Simon Riggs | 2008-09-23 13:05:15 | Re: hash index improving v3 |