Re: Reverse Key Index
От | Sven R. Kunze |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Reverse Key Index |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 54EF1DB0.3060304@tbz-pariv.de обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: Reverse Key Index (Thomas Kellerer <spam_eater@gmx.net>) |
Список | pgsql-performance |
On 26.02.2015 13:48, Thomas Kellerer wrote: > Sven R. Kunze schrieb am 26.02.2015 um 13:23: >> If you think Reverse Key Indexes have no usage here in PostgreSQL, you should not support convenience features >> for easily improving performance without breaking the querying API Sorry for my bad English: The if-clause ends with "just let me know and we can close the issue immediately." You quoted an or'ed if-part. Point was, if you see no benefits or you have no intention to include it anyway (patch provided or not), we can stop now. I am not married to this features and right now I can live without it. > It's also unclear to me which "performance" you are referring to. > Insert performance? Retrieval performance? Concurrency? > > The use-case for reverse indexes in Oracle is pretty small: it's _only_ about the contention when doing a lot of insertswith increasing numbers (because the different transactions will be blocked when accessing the blocks in question). Exactly. That would include logging databases and big/high-frequency OLTP systems. > As Postgres manages inserts differently than Oracle I'm not so sure that this problem exists in Postgres the same way itdoes in Oracle. Maybe, PostgreSQL internal experts can answer that question thoroughly. > That's why I asked if you have a _specific_ problem. I see. Answering explicitly: no, I don't. > Richard Footes blog post is mostly about the myth that _if_ you have a reverse index this is only used for equality operations. > It does not claim that a reverse index is faster than a regular index _if_ it is used for a range scan. Correct. > The question is: do you think you need a reverse index because you have a performance problem with when doing many, manyinserts at the same time using "close-by" values into a table that uses a btree index on the column? I presume that Oracle would not invest resources in implementing features which would have no benefits for their customers. Thus, the research on this topic should already been done for us. That given, if we can answer your question 'whether PostgreSQL handles it differently from Oracle so that the contention issue cannot arise' can be answered with a no, I tend to say: yes. > Or do you think you need a reverse index to improve the performance of a range scan? If that is the then you can easilyus a gin/gist index or even a simple btree index using a trigram index to speed up a "LIKE '%abc%'" (something Oraclecan't do at all) without having to worry about obfuscation layers (aka ORM). From what I gather, reverse key indexes are not about improving range scans but about improving insertion speed due to diversification of insertion location. I actually used Richard Foote's posts only to get a proper understanding of reverse key indexes and what can and cannot be done with them and where their issues are: https://richardfoote.wordpress.com/2008/01/14/introduction-to-reverse-key-indexes-part-i/ https://richardfoote.wordpress.com/2008/01/16/introduction-to-reverse-key-indexes-part-ii-another-myth-bites-the-dust/ https://richardfoote.wordpress.com/2008/01/18/introduction-to-reverse-key-indexes-part-iii-a-space-oddity/ https://richardfoote.wordpress.com/2008/01/21/introduction-to-reverse-key-indexes-part-iv-cluster-one/ -- Sven R. Kunze TBZ-PARIV GmbH, Bernsdorfer Str. 210-212, 09126 Chemnitz Tel: +49 (0)371 33714721, Fax: +49 (0)371 5347920 e-mail: srkunze@tbz-pariv.de web: www.tbz-pariv.de Geschäftsführer: Dr. Reiner Wohlgemuth Sitz der Gesellschaft: Chemnitz Registergericht: Chemnitz HRB 8543
В списке pgsql-performance по дате отправления: