| From: | Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | "Joshua D(dot) Drake" <jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Indirect indexes |
| Date: | 2016-10-18 20:00:43 |
| Message-ID: | CANP8+jLRR9MTU9vJL2VEjKSu=1YaBJKrErTW1C61ewX3qV07iw@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 18 October 2016 at 21:41, Joshua D. Drake <jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com> wrote:
> Are we
> trading initial performance gains for performance degradation through
> maintenance?
Eh? That's backwards, so No. The whole point of this is it avoids long
term degradation currently caused by non-HOT updates.
Normal UPDATEs that don't change PKs won't generate any changes to
VACUUM away, so only actions that remove PK values will cause anything
to be collected and removed from indexes.
--
Simon Riggs http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Claudio Freire | 2016-10-18 20:04:32 | Re: Indirect indexes |
| Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2016-10-18 20:00:37 | Re: "Some tests to cover hash_index" |