Re: Index Unqiueness

From: Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>
To: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, abhinav batra <abbatra(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Index Unqiueness
Date: 2013-03-09 00:41:04
Message-ID: 20130309004104.GF3005@momjian.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Fri, Mar 8, 2013 at 10:26:21AM -0500, Robert Haas wrote:
> overhead seems badly overpriced for insert-only tables. These are not
> fundamental truths of the universe, or even of PostgreSQL; they are
> specific consequences of the representation we've chosen for heaps.
> Many of them are things that we've grown into, rather than designed
> with malice aforethought: for example, freezing is a consequence of
> the after-the-fact desire to be able to support more than 4bn
> transactions over the lifetime of the database. So it's way better
> than what we had before, and yet, if we all sat down and designed a
> new on-disk storage format for a new product today, I'm sure none of
> us would pick one that expires after 2bn transactions.

One thing to remember is that our freeze level is 200M transactions
because of clog lookups/size, not wraparound concerns.

--
Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> http://momjian.us
EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com

+ It's impossible for everything to be true. +

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Greg Stark 2013-03-09 00:58:51 Re: Why do we still perform a check for pre-sorted input within qsort variants?
Previous Message Greg Stark 2013-03-09 00:40:26 Re: Enabling Checksums