Re: contrib idea
От | Jean-Paul ARGUDO |
---|---|
Тема | Re: contrib idea |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 20011221091258.GB1938@pastis обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: contrib idea (Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us>) |
Список | pgsql-hackers |
> Keep in mind that the penalty for no index is a sequential scan, which > _usually_ is a light operation. In fact, many queryes don't even use > indexes if they are going to need to see more than a small portion of > the table. I agree... Managing customers'DBs for years now, I'm convinced that systematic indexes are good only for the intellect of the DBA because it may respect some methods :-) Too many tables with less than thousands records. Automatic indexes are annoying, I have to drop em all every time. It's harder to think in droping unwanted indexes than creating wanted ones. I know DBAs that drop automatic PK index created by PG only because the naming method choosen for index is not like they want.. :-) Table scans are always good idea for litle tables. Even more if the table is fully cached (I dream of a "CREATE TABLE... CACHE"). Cool too when we'll be able to store execution plans :-) Finaly, there would be tables with more index than data :-) if you consider tables with many FK. Where's the gain then? Best regards, -- Jean-Paul ARGUDO IDEALX S.A.S Consultant bases de données 15-17, av. de Ségur http://IDEALX.com/ F-75007 PARIS
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: