From: | Jan Wieck <wieck(at)debis(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgreSQL(dot)org |
Subject: | Index toasting (was: Re: [HACKERS] Error "vacuum pg_proc") |
Date: | 2000-01-03 18:25:06 |
Message-ID: | 3870E982.B123DF8A@debis.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Tom Lane wrote:
> I wrote:
> > And that'll still crash and burn for multicolumn indexes.
>
> Not to mention functional indexes, which typically store values that
> don't appear in the referenced tuple at all.
>
> Basically, indexes have to have their own toasters. There's no other
> way.
You're right.
I think it's best to delay index toasting until we have some
experience with normal, main tuple attribute toasting. It'd be
nice if the solution had covered huge values to be indexed
automatically (what it doesn't any more). But I think most
people can live with a database, that cannot index huge
values, but is capable to store and retrieve them for now.
Jan
--
#======================================================================#
# It's easier to get forgiveness for being wrong than for being right. #
# Let's break this rule - forgive me. #
#========================================= wieck(at)debis(dot)com (Jan Wieck) #
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Karel Zak - Zakkr | 2000-01-03 19:23:35 | replicator |
Previous Message | Ed Loehr | 2000-01-03 18:20:14 | Re: [HACKERS] Docs |