| From: | Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: [RFC] Minmax indexes |
| Date: | 2013-06-17 18:53:54 |
| Message-ID: | 51BF5B42.70200@agliodbs.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
> So there isn't a "fall down" thing here. We expect the recently
> loaded/updated data to be scanned and that's OK.
>
> Having the minmax index updated greedily is just adding extra work for
> fast diminishing returns. We can always add that later if really
> needed, but I doubt it will be needed - in just the same way as mat
> views aren't greedily updated.
Ok, in that case, can we add the patch without messing with the FSM
logic? It'll work out-of-the-box for append-only tables, and that's a
pretty solid use case.
--
Josh Berkus
PostgreSQL Experts Inc.
http://pgexperts.com
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Josh Berkus | 2013-06-17 18:57:18 | Re: refresh materialized view concurrently |
| Previous Message | Sawada Masahiko | 2013-06-17 18:48:26 | Re: Patch for fail-back without fresh backup |