Re: Subject: bool / vacuum full bug followup part 2

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Scott Marlowe <scott(dot)marlowe(at)ihs(dot)com>
Cc: pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Subject: bool / vacuum full bug followup part 2
Date: 2002-05-06 16:44:03
Message-ID: 15976.1020703443@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-general

Scott Marlowe <scott(dot)marlowe(at)ihs(dot)com> writes:
> Since postgresql 7.2.1 refuses to make an index of any kind other than
> btree, what is the answer? no indexes? While single column indexes may
> seem wasteful, remember that the boole may be stored in a table that has
> very large tuples, and a sequential scan of such a table could be quite
> slow, or there may be a situation where a tiny percentage of the booles
> are one setting while most are the other, like an approval system for
> online content.

You could use a partial index for the latter case. If the column is
about fifty-fifty then any kind of index is a waste of space...

regards, tom lane

In response to

Browse pgsql-general by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Johnson, Shaunn 2002-05-06 16:48:34 pg_restore question
Previous Message David Fee 2002-05-06 16:37:26 postgresql 7.1.3