Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: 9.3 Pre-proposal: Range Merge Join

From: Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com>
To: Jeff Davis <pgsql(at)j-davis(dot)com>
Cc: Alexander Korotkov <aekorotkov(at)gmail(dot)com>, Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(dot)linnakangas(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: 9.3 Pre-proposal: Range Merge Join
Date: 2012-04-16 21:20:03
Message-ID: (view raw or whole thread)
Lists: pgsql-hackers
On Mon, Apr 16, 2012 at 9:12 PM, Jeff Davis <pgsql(at)j-davis(dot)com> wrote:

> That had occurred to me, but I was hesitant to only use temp indexes. It
> still doesn't really offer a good solution when both sides of the join
> are relatively large (because of random I/O). Also the build speed of
> the index would be more important than it is now.

The thing I like most about temp indexes is that they needn't be temporary.

I'd like to see something along the lines of demand-created optional
indexes, that we reclaim space/maintenance overhead on according to
some cache management scheme. More space you have, the more of the
important ones hang around. The rough same idea applies to
materialised views.

 Simon Riggs         
 PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services

In response to


pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Peter GeogheganDate: 2012-04-16 21:42:42
Subject: Re: Memory usage during sorting
Previous:From: Alexander KorotkovDate: 2012-04-16 21:19:53
Subject: Re: 9.3 Pre-proposal: Range Merge Join

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2015 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group