| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | "Mikheev, Vadim" <vmikheev(at)SECTORBASE(dot)COM> |
| Cc: | "'Bruce Momjian'" <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us>, jim(at)buttafuoco(dot)net, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Index location patch for review |
| Date: | 2001-09-12 17:54:02 |
| Message-ID: | 6291.1000317242@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
"Mikheev, Vadim" <vmikheev(at)SECTORBASE(dot)COM> writes:
> The more general and "standard" way to go are TABLESPACEs.
> But probably proposed feature will be compatible with
> tablespaces, when we'll got them:
Will it be? I'm afraid of creating a backwards-compatibility
problem for ourselves when it comes time to implement tablespaces.
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.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Jim Buttafuoco | 2001-09-12 18:22:02 | Re: Index location patch for review |
| Previous Message | Thomas Lockhart | 2001-09-12 17:51:10 | [Fwd: [Fwd: [tao-users] FW: HEADS UP: CVSup timestamp bug]] |