From: | Peter Geoghegan <peter(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com> |
Cc: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Progress on fast path sorting, btree index creation time |
Date: | 2012-01-10 06:48:11 |
Message-ID: | CAEYLb_UTLwsRUfnaYzi76jfuzgPQXAumQnGf_2vdUSYYRk1bsg@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 9 January 2012 19:45, Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com> wrote:
>> Obviously, many indexes are unique and thus won't have duplicates at
>> all. But if someone creates an index and doesn't make it unique, odds
>> are very high that it has some duplicates. Not sure how many we
>> typically expect to see, but more than zero...
>
> Peter may not, but I personally admin lots of databases which have
> indexes on values like "category" or "city" which have 100's or 1000's
> of duplicates per value. I don't think this is uncommon at all.
Uh, then all the more reason to do what I recommend, I imagine. There
is most definitely a large overhead to creating such indexes, at least
for scalar types. As far as I can tell, Tom's complaint is quite
speculative.
--
Peter Geoghegan http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training and Services
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Heikki Linnakangas | 2012-01-10 08:04:06 | Re: Page Checksums |
Previous Message | Greg Smith | 2012-01-10 05:04:40 | Re: 16-bit page checksums for 9.2 |