| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Jeff Davis <pgsql(at)j-davis(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnakangas(at)vmware(dot)com>, Alexander Korotkov <aekorotkov(at)gmail(dot)com>, Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: gistchoose vs. bloat |
| Date: | 2013-01-21 05:48:22 |
| Message-ID: | 9994.1358747302@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Jeff Davis <pgsql(at)j-davis(dot)com> writes:
> On Fri, 2012-12-14 at 18:36 +0200, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
>> BTW, I don't much like the option name "randomization". It's not clear
>> what's been randomized. I'd prefer something like
>> "distribute_on_equal_penalty", although that's really long. Better ideas?
> I agree that "randomization" is vague, but I can't think of anything
> better.
I looked at this patch. ISTM we should not have the option at all but
just do it always. I cannot believe that always-go-left is ever a
preferable strategy in the long run; the resulting imbalance in the
index will surely kill any possible benefit. Even if there are some
cases where it miraculously fails to lose, how many users are going to
realize that applies to their case and make use of the option?
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Jeff Janes | 2013-01-21 05:51:11 | Re: Further pg_upgrade analysis for many tables |
| Previous Message | Devrim GÜNDÜZ | 2013-01-21 05:39:39 | Re: [HACKERS] Error Building rpm |