Re: Fast insertion indexes: why no developments

Поиск
Список
Период
Сортировка
От Claudio Freire
Тема Re: Fast insertion indexes: why no developments
Дата
Msg-id CAGTBQpYyTYo1wq=wZm6xUv9UXonBiZuhOE9FV-2o6XJO6xr_pw@mail.gmail.com
обсуждение исходный текст
Ответ на Re: Fast insertion indexes: why no developments  (Leonardo Francalanci <m_lists@yahoo.it>)
Ответы Re: Fast insertion indexes: why no developments  (Leonardo Francalanci <m_lists@yahoo.it>)
Список pgsql-hackers
On Tue, Nov 5, 2013 at 11:28 AM, Leonardo Francalanci <m_lists@yahoo.it> wrote:
> I get > 9000 pages for 49 values out of 50... which means scanning 90% of
> the table.
>
> Either my sql is not correct (likely), or my understanding of the minmax
> index is
> not correct (even more likely), or the minmax index is not usable in a
> random inputs
> scenario.


Yep, you're correct. That's the cost for querying random values.

But, both real data isn't truly random, and you haven't really
analyzed update cost, which is what we were talking about in that last
post.



В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления:

Предыдущее
От: Tom Lane
Дата:
Сообщение: Re: pgsql: Remove internal uses of CTimeZone/HasCTZSet.
Следующее
От: Andres Freund
Дата:
Сообщение: Re: logical changeset generation v6.5