Re: Feature request for adoptive indexes

From: Mark Dilger <mark(dot)dilger(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>
To: Tomas Vondra <tomas(dot)vondra(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, Hayk Manukyan <manukyantt(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: Pavel Borisov <pashkin(dot)elfe(at)gmail(dot)com>, Postgres hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Feature request for adoptive indexes
Date: 2021-10-26 22:08:37
Message-ID: 25CDCB9D-C22B-45E1-82D2-CBDADB08F20C@enterprisedb.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

> On Oct 26, 2021, at 1:43 PM, Tomas Vondra <tomas(dot)vondra(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> wrote:
>
> I'm still rather skeptical about it - for such feature to be useful the prefix columns must not be very selective, i.e. the posting trees are expected to be fairly large (e.g. 5-7k rows). It pretty much has to to require multiple (many) index pages, in order for the "larger" btree index to be slower. And at that point I'd expect the extra overhead to be worse than simply defining multiple simple indexes.

For three separate indexes, an update or delete of a single row in the indexed table would surely require changing at least three pages in the indexes. For some as-yet-ill-defined combined index type, perhaps the three entries in the index would fall on the same index page often enough to reduce the I/O cost of the action? This is all hard to contemplate without a more precise description of the index algorithm.

Perhaps the OP might want to cite a paper describing a particular index algorithm for us to review?


Mark Dilger
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2021-10-26 22:16:34 Re: allowing "map" for password auth methods with clientcert=verify-full
Previous Message Bossart, Nathan 2021-10-26 21:48:32 Re: Predefined role pg_maintenance for VACUUM, ANALYZE, CHECKPOINT.