From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Jeff Janes <jeff(dot)janes(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Add primary key/unique constraint using prefix columns of an index |
Date: | 2012-05-23 17:23:43 |
Message-ID: | 7175.1337793823@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> I don't object to the feature, but I think it's real-world utility
> will be more limited than we might hope. When covering indexes are
> not in play, someone might choose to index only, say, the primary key.
> And maybe the primary key doesn't change very often, so HOT still
> applies to nearly all updates. But then when they try to make a
> covering index, they're now indexing columns that they *do* update
> pretty regularly. Now the gain from index-only scans is fighting with
> the loss from some updates no longer being HOT. I think in many cases
> losing the benefit of HOT will cost more than the covering index
> gains, at least in 9.2. I hope we'll be able to improve it in future
> releases.
Well, if the table is getting enough update traffic that it matters much
whether your updates are HOT or not, then index-only scans are probably
a dead letter anyhow, because too small a fraction of the pages will be
all-visible. I think the IOS feature is only good for something on
read-mostly tables.
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Amit Kapila | 2012-05-23 17:33:26 | Re: Readme of Buffer Management seems to have wrong sentence |
Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2012-05-23 17:13:22 | Re: Add primary key/unique constraint using prefix columns of an index |