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

Re: contrib idea

From: Jean-Paul ARGUDO <jean-paul(dot)argudo(at)IDEALX(dot)com>
To: Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: contrib idea
Date: 2001-12-21 09:12:59
Message-ID: 20011221091258.GB1938@pastis (view raw, whole thread or download thread mbox)
Lists: pgsql-hackers
> Keep in mind that the penalty for no index is a sequential scan, which
> _usually_ is a light operation.  In fact, many queryes don't even use
> indexes if they are going to need to see more than a small portion of
> the table.

I agree... 

Managing customers'DBs for years now, I'm convinced that systematic indexes are
good only for the intellect of the DBA because it may respect some methods :-)

Too many tables with less than thousands records. Automatic indexes are
annoying, I have to drop em all every time. It's harder to think in droping
unwanted indexes than creating wanted ones.

I know DBAs that drop automatic PK index created by PG only because the naming
method choosen for index is not like they want.. :-)

Table scans are always good idea for litle tables. Even more if the table is 
fully cached (I dream of a "CREATE TABLE... CACHE"). Cool too when we'll be
able to store execution plans :-)

Finaly, there would be tables with more index than data :-) if you consider
tables with many FK. Where's the gain then?

Best regards,

Jean-Paul ARGUDO                     		IDEALX S.A.S
Consultant bases de données			15-17, av. de Ségur 				F-75007 PARIS

In response to

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Hannu KrosingDate: 2001-12-21 12:21:12
Subject: Re: 7.2 is slow?
Previous:From: Marko KreenDate: 2001-12-21 08:34:45
Subject: Re: pgcryto failures on freebsd/alpha

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2017 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group