| From: | Nicolas Barbier <nicolas(dot)barbier(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)heroku(dot)com>, Leonardo Francalanci <m_lists(at)yahoo(dot)it>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Fast insertion indexes: why no developments |
| Date: | 2013-11-12 21:47:06 |
| Message-ID: | CAP-rdTYWGj96v9zJr=ZMXxw8Uf6c5hhQ4jA0waas8zLDW4PmPA@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
2013/11/12 Nicolas Barbier <nicolas(dot)barbier(at)gmail(dot)com>:
> In conclusion, use a “B-forest” when:
>
> * The index entries are small (large fan-out).
> * The insertion throughput is high.
> * It’s OK for look-ups to be slow.
> * Extra points when the storage medium has high seek times.
Oops, forgot the most important ones:
* Insertions are random.
* The total amount of data is very high.
Nicolas
--
A. Because it breaks the logical sequence of discussion.
Q. Why is top posting bad?
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Peter Eisentraut | 2013-11-12 22:05:30 | Re: Clang 3.3 Analyzer Results |
| Previous Message | David Johnston | 2013-11-12 21:46:55 | Re: Transaction-lifespan memory leak with plpgsql DO blocks |