Re: GIN fast insert

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Teodor Sigaev <teodor(at)sigaev(dot)ru>, Pgsql Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: GIN fast insert
Date: 2009-02-23 18:35:51
Message-ID: 2239.1235414151@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> On Mon, Feb 23, 2009 at 10:05 AM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
>> Actually, I'm going to *insist* that we lose the index AM scan
>> altogether.

> Except that the "inessential" feature in question is a feature that
> currently WORKS, and I don't believe that the testing you've done is
> anywhere near sufficient to show that no one will be upset if it goes
> away.

What feature is that --- the ability to get an undefined subset of rows
quickly by using LIMIT without ORDER BY? Not much of a feature.

> Without some convincing evidence to support that proposition, I
> think it would be better to postpone the whole patch to 8.5 and use
> that time to fix the problem,

Wouldn't bother me any. We are way overdue for 8.4 already.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2009-02-23 19:53:24 Re: Okay to change TypeCreate() signature in back branches?
Previous Message Robert Haas 2009-02-23 18:09:25 Re: GIN fast insert