Re: Fast insertion indexes: why no developments

From: Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)heroku(dot)com>
To: Leonardo Francalanci <m_lists(at)yahoo(dot)it>
Cc: pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Fast insertion indexes: why no developments
Date: 2013-10-29 16:10:47
Message-ID: CAM3SWZTKKHixCkC9hbpOpaVjuW0Bf2oYBfh9yUAN8QiZvx0ouQ@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Tue, Oct 29, 2013 at 7:53 AM, Leonardo Francalanci <m_lists(at)yahoo(dot)it> wrote:
> I don't see much interest in insert-efficient indexes.

Presumably someone will get around to implementing a btree index
insertion buffer one day. I think that would be a particularly
compelling optimization for us, because we could avoid ever inserting
index tuples that are already dead when the deferred insertion
actually occurs.

--
Peter Geoghegan

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Claudio Freire 2013-10-29 16:14:39 Re: Fast insertion indexes: why no developments
Previous Message Tom Lane 2013-10-29 16:03:13 Re: surprising to_timestamp behavior