Re: Index location patch for review

From: Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: lockhart(at)fourpalms(dot)org
Cc: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, "Mikheev, Vadim" <vmikheev(at)SECTORBASE(dot)COM>, jim(at)buttafuoco(dot)net, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Index location patch for review
Date: 2001-09-12 18:26:26
Message-ID: 200109121826.f8CIQQl23289@candle.pha.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

> ...
> > At the very least I'd like to see some information demonstrating
> > how much benefit there is to this proposed patch, before we
> > consider whether to adopt it. If there's a significant performance
> > benefit to splitting a PG database along the table-vs-index divide,
> > then it's interesting as a short-term improvement ... but Jim didn't
> > even make that assertion, let alone provide evidence to back it up.
>
> Clearly there can be a *storage management* benefit to having control
> over what gets put where, so this does not need to be justified strictly
> on a performance basis.
>
> For features like this, we will feel free to evolve them or
> revolutionize them with further development, so I'm not worried about
> the backward compatibility issue for cases like this.
>
> Comments?

Agreed.

--
Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us
pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us | (610) 853-3000
+ If your life is a hard drive, | 830 Blythe Avenue
+ Christ can be your backup. | Drexel Hill, Pennsylvania 19026

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Peter Eisentraut 2001-09-12 18:47:49 Re: pg_dump patch: Allow -X'exclude table from dump by
Previous Message Jim Buttafuoco 2001-09-12 18:25:54 Re: Index location patch for review