| From: | Thomas Lockhart <lockhart(at)fourpalms(dot)org> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | "Mikheev, Vadim" <vmikheev(at)SECTORBASE(dot)COM>, "'Bruce Momjian'" <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us>, jim(at)buttafuoco(dot)net, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Index location patch for review |
| Date: | 2001-09-12 18:24:34 |
| Message-ID: | 3B9FA862.4AC3FE6B@fourpalms.org |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
...
> At the very least I'd like to see some information demonstrating
> how much benefit there is to this proposed patch, before we
> consider whether to adopt it. If there's a significant performance
> benefit to splitting a PG database along the table-vs-index divide,
> then it's interesting as a short-term improvement ... but Jim didn't
> even make that assertion, let alone provide evidence to back it up.
Clearly there can be a *storage management* benefit to having control
over what gets put where, so this does not need to be justified strictly
on a performance basis.
For features like this, we will feel free to evolve them or
revolutionize them with further development, so I'm not worried about
the backward compatibility issue for cases like this.
Comments?
- Thomas
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Jim Buttafuoco | 2001-09-12 18:25:54 | Re: Index location patch for review |
| Previous Message | Bruce Momjian | 2001-09-12 18:22:05 | Re: Index location patch for review |