| From: | Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Tatsuo Ishii <ishii(at)postgresql(dot)org>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: BRIN index and aborted transaction |
| Date: | 2015-07-23 18:59:16 |
| Message-ID: | 55B13984.1060207@agliodbs.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 07/23/2015 11:18 AM, Robert Haas wrote:
> Cool. I'm not sure exactly what the right solution is either, but it
> seems like the current situation could very well lead to degrading
> index performance over time, with no way to put that right except to
> rebuild the index completely. So it seems worth trying to improve
> things.
As a reality check, if that was the situation, it wouldn't be the only
type of index to have that problem. Even our BTrees, with certain
update patterns, need to be periodically rebuilt from scratch.
In other words, I don't think that fixing performance issues with BRIN
indexes and frequenly-updated tables should be a blocker for 9.5. Not
clear on whether we're considering this an open item or not.
--
Josh Berkus
PostgreSQL Experts Inc.
http://pgexperts.com
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Ildus Kurbangaliev | 2015-07-23 19:01:39 | Re: RFC: replace pg_stat_activity.waiting with something more descriptive |
| Previous Message | Josh Berkus | 2015-07-23 18:49:47 | Re: Autonomous Transaction is back |