| From: | Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: btree split logic is fragile in the presence of large index items |
| Date: | 2000-07-19 16:27:33 |
| Message-ID: | Pine.LNX.4.21.0007190246000.1545-100000@localhost.localdomain |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Tom Lane writes:
> A more radical way out is to do what Vadim's been saying we should do
> eventually: redo the btree logic so that there are never "equal" keys
> (ie, use the item TID as a tiebreaker when ordering items). That would
> fix our performance problems with many equal keys as well as simplify
> the code. But it'd be a good deal of work, I fear.
I wonder, if we are ever to support deferrable unique constraints (or even
properly working unique constraints, re update t1 set x = x + 1), wouldn't
the whole unique business have to disappear from the indexes anyway and be
handled more in the trigger area?
--
Peter Eisentraut Sernanders väg 10:115
peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net 75262 Uppsala
http://yi.org/peter-e/ Sweden
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Peter Eisentraut | 2000-07-19 16:28:51 | Re: Warnings triggered by recent includefile cleanups |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2000-07-19 15:45:19 | Re: btree split logic is fragile in the presence of lar ge index items |