| From: | Claudio Freire <klaussfreire(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Leonardo Francalanci <m_lists(at)yahoo(dot)it> |
| Cc: | PostgreSQL-Dev <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Fast insertion indexes: why no developments |
| Date: | 2013-11-05 17:30:06 |
| Message-ID: | CAGTBQpYbc5MGFzjbFx9QcfcVuiw-AeyqDnO0QtStapK27ebPkQ@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, Nov 5, 2013 at 12:22 PM, Leonardo Francalanci <m_lists(at)yahoo(dot)it> wrote:
> Claudio Freire wrote
>> you haven't really
>> analyzed update cost, which is what we were talking about in that last
>> post.
>
> I don't care for a better update cost if the cost to query is a table scan.
> Otherwise, I'll just claim that no index at all is even better than minmax:
> 0 update cost, pretty much same query time.
>
> Maybe there's value in minmax indexes for sequential data, but not for
> random data, which is the topic of this thread.
Well, of course, they're not magic pixie dust.
But is your data really random? (or normal?)
That's the thing...
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Heikki Linnakangas | 2013-11-05 17:49:24 | Re: GIN improvements part 1: additional information |
| Previous Message | Jeff Janes | 2013-11-05 17:28:56 | Re: [PATCH] configure: add git describe output to PG_VERSION when building a git tree |