On Tue, Nov 5, 2013 at 12:22 PM, Leonardo Francalanci <m_lists@yahoo.it> wrote:
> Claudio Freire wrote
>> you haven't really
>> analyzed update cost, which is what we were talking about in that last
>> post.
>
> I don't care for a better update cost if the cost to query is a table scan.
> Otherwise, I'll just claim that no index at all is even better than minmax:
> 0 update cost, pretty much same query time.
>
> Maybe there's value in minmax indexes for sequential data, but not for
> random data, which is the topic of this thread.
Well, of course, they're not magic pixie dust.
But is your data really random? (or normal?)
That's the thing...