| From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Matthew Wakeling <matthew(at)flymine(dot)org> |
| Cc: | Eliot Gable <egable+pgsql-performance(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: B-Heaps |
| Date: | 2010-06-18 11:54:17 |
| Message-ID: | AANLkTik-81bRcl1tle10YvsdY1F6MwF4SFZErKOZa5LA@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-performance |
On Tue, Jun 15, 2010 at 8:23 AM, Matthew Wakeling <matthew(at)flymine(dot)org> wrote:
> Absolutely, and I said in
> http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-performance/2010-03/msg00272.php
> but applied to the Postgres B-tree indexes instead of heaps.
This is an interesting idea. I would guess that you could simulate
this to some degree by compiling PG with a larger block size. Have
you tried this to see whether/how much/for what kind of workloads it
helps?
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise Postgres Company
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Kenneth Marshall | 2010-06-18 12:48:26 | Re: requested shared memory size overflows size_t |
| Previous Message | Pierre C | 2010-06-18 09:40:43 | Re: PostgreSQL as a local in-memory cache |