| From: | Claudio Freire <klaussfreire(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Mark Thornton <mthornton(at)optrak(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Jon Nelson <jnelson+pgsql(at)jamponi(dot)net>, pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: very very slow inserts into very large table |
| Date: | 2012-07-16 20:01:21 |
| Message-ID: | CAGTBQpYe+csNXc3whgL_EWTMwH-W8sLkzdFNk8jAe2qoVYLkfA@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-performance |
On Mon, Jul 16, 2012 at 4:16 PM, Mark Thornton <mthornton(at)optrak(dot)com> wrote:
>> Actually, it should create a temporary index btree and merge[0] them.
>> Only worth if there are really a lot of rows.
>>
>> [0] http://www.ccs.neu.edu/home/bradrui/index_files/parareorg.pdf
>
> I think 93 million would qualify as a lot of rows. However does any
> available database (commercial or open source) use this optimisation.
Databases, I honestly don't know. But I do know most document
retrieval engines use a similar technique with inverted indexes.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Craig Ringer | 2012-07-17 03:30:56 | Re: very very slow inserts into very large table |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2012-07-16 19:46:07 | Re: [PERFORM] DELETE vs TRUNCATE explanation |