Re: Further open item (Was: Status of 7.2)

From: Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>
To: "Tille, Andreas" <TilleA(at)rki(dot)de>
Cc: PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Further open item (Was: Status of 7.2)
Date: 2001-11-16 16:38:15
Message-ID: Pine.LNX.4.30.0111161710190.644-100000@peter.localdomain
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Tille, Andreas writes:

> > Sorry, I´m really unable to send patches but I have a feature request
> > which was addressed in the thread "Serious performance problem" on this
> > list. It mainly concerns the performance increase if there would be
> > an index scan method which doesn´t have to check the validity of data
> > in the table.

> I just want to know now if this is an issue for PostgreSQL hackers:
>
> [ ] yes
> [ ] no
> [ ] we are discussing about that

We are always willing to discuss changes that improve performance,
reliability, standards compliance, etc. However, "MS SQL does it, and MS
SQL is fast" is not sufficient proof that a feature would improve average
performance in PostgreSQL. This issue has been brought up with similarly
unsatisfactory arguments in the past, so you should be able to find out
about the discussion in the archives. Some of the arguments against this
change were bigger indexes, slower write operations, non-existent proof
that it's really faster, putting the index on a different disk will mostly
obsolete the issue. Consequently, this is currently not something that
has got a chance to be implemented anytime soon.

--
Peter Eisentraut peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Bruce Momjian 2001-11-16 17:02:16 Re: Further open item (Was: Status of 7.2)
Previous Message Stephan Szabo 2001-11-16 16:33:04 Re: Further open item (Was: Status of 7.2)