| From: | The Hermit Hacker <scrappy(at)hub(dot)org> |
|---|---|
| To: | Philip Warner <pjw(at)rhyme(dot)com(dot)au> |
| Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: How to get around LIKE inefficiencies? |
| Date: | 2000-11-06 03:34:49 |
| Message-ID: | Pine.BSF.4.21.0011052334220.928-100000@thelab.hub.org |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Mon, 6 Nov 2000, Philip Warner wrote:
> At 23:12 5/11/00 -0400, The Hermit Hacker wrote:
> >
> >Except, if we are telling it to get rid of using the index, may as well
> >get rid of it altogether, as updates/inserts would be slowed down by
> >having to update that too ...
> >
>
> So long as you don't ever need the index for anything else, then getting
> rid of it is by far the best solution. But, eg, if you want to check if a
> page is already indexed you will probably end up with a sequential search.
except, it appears that they both store the text of the URL *and* the
CRC32 value of it, and do other queries based on the CRC32 value of it ...
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Bruce Momjian | 2000-11-06 03:53:57 | Re: How to get around LIKE inefficiencies? |
| Previous Message | The Hermit Hacker | 2000-11-06 03:34:11 | Re: How to get around LIKE inefficiencies? |