| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> |
| Cc: | jzhang(at)greenplum(dot)com, swm(at)linuxworld(dot)com(dot)au, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Bitmap index status |
| Date: | 2006-09-12 14:11:15 |
| Message-ID: | 15749.1158070275@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> writes:
> What's the status of the bitmap index patch? Have you worked on it since
> the last posted patch
> (http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-patches/2006-08/msg00003.php)?
Gavin and Jie have made major changes since that version (or at least
they'd better have something to show for the month since then ;-)).
I wouldn't recommend reviewing the patch until they post something
current ...
> Also, vacuum actually does a reindex, which seems awfully wasteful. That
> needs to be looked at.
Yikes. I imagine they've not tried to do anything about that; if you
want to help, maybe you could take that subproblem?
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Peter Eisentraut | 2006-09-12 14:14:14 | Re: dump / restore functionality |
| Previous Message | Heikki Linnakangas | 2006-09-12 14:01:36 | currentItemData & currentMarkData |