Re: why postgresql over other RDBMS

Gregory Stark wrote:
> "Bruce Momjian" <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> writes:
>
> > Matthew T. O'Connor wrote:
> >> Bruce Momjian wrote:
> >> >
> >> > * Allow multiple indexes to be created concurrently, ideally via a
> >> > single heap scan, and have a restore of a pg_dump somehow use it
>
> Actually, the sync scan patch ought to make this more or less happen
> magically. If you start a bunch of concurrent index builds they will try to
> scan the table together.
>
> There's no useful way for pg_dump to make use of this since it only has one
> backend. And you still need to generate n copies of the data for sorting. And
> performing n sorts in parallel won't be as cache efficient as doing them one
> after the other. So there's still a use case for the TODO
>
> But the hole is not nearly as urgent as before. You can get most of the
> benefit if you really need it by rolling your own. And the cool thing is some
> people already have rolled their own and they'll just magically see an
> improvement. They don't have to do anything they weren't doing already to turn
> it on.

They could roll their own a lot easier if you had finished the psql
concurrent patch.

--
Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> http://momjian.us
EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com

+ If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. +