| From: | Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)bowt(dot)ie> |
|---|---|
| To: | Oleg Bartunov <obartunov(at)postgrespro(dot)ru> |
| Cc: | Alexander Korotkov <a(dot)korotkov(at)postgrespro(dot)ru>, Tomas Vondra <tomas(dot)vondra(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: [HACKERS] [PROPOSAL] Effective storage of duplicates in B-tree index. |
| Date: | 2019-11-16 02:18:49 |
| Message-ID: | CAH2-WznV7rJ5nJ2kUo1Vcgn3Zp7g8sAE1SxQypw=U2wF=dRMqQ@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Sun, Sep 15, 2019 at 3:47 AM Oleg Bartunov <obartunov(at)postgrespro(dot)ru> wrote:
> Is it worth to make a provision to add an ability to control how
> duplicates are sorted ?
Duplicates will continue to be sorted based on TID, in effect. We want
to preserve the ability to perform retail index tuple deletion. I
believe that that will become important in the future.
> If we speak about GIN, why not take into
> account our experiments with RUM (https://github.com/postgrespro/rum)
> ?
FWIW, I think that it's confusing that RUM almost shares its name with
the "RUM conjecture":
http://daslab.seas.harvard.edu/rum-conjecture/
--
Peter Geoghegan
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Michael Paquier | 2019-11-16 06:24:32 | Re: SKIP_LOCKED test causes random buildfarm failures |
| Previous Message | Peter Geoghegan | 2019-11-16 02:03:01 | Re: [HACKERS] [WIP] Effective storage of duplicates in B-tree index. |