Re: Fast insertion indexes: why no developments - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Leonardo Francalanci
Subject Re: Fast insertion indexes: why no developments
Date
Msg-id 1383640354061-5776964.post@n5.nabble.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Fast insertion indexes: why no developments  (Simon Riggs <simon@2ndQuadrant.com>)
Responses Re: Fast insertion indexes: why no developments  (Simon Riggs <simon@2ndQuadrant.com>)
List pgsql-hackers
Simon Riggs wrote
> Everybody on this thread is advised to look closely at Min Max indexes
> before starting any further work.
> 
> MinMax will give us access to many new kinds of plan, plus they are
> about as close to perfectly efficient, by which I mean almost zero
> overhead, with regard to inserts as it is possible to get.

Simon, I don't understand how minmax indexes would help in a random-inserts
scenario.
While I would love to use minmax for other columns (since we also partition
and search based on a timestamp, which is usually well clustered), I thought
minmax index would be perfect in a mostly-incremental values scenario. 



--
View this message in context:
http://postgresql.1045698.n5.nabble.com/Fast-insertion-indexes-why-no-developments-tp5776227p5776964.html
Sent from the PostgreSQL - hackers mailing list archive at Nabble.com.



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Leonardo Francalanci
Date:
Subject: Re: Fast insertion indexes: why no developments
Next
From: Albe Laurenz
Date:
Subject: Re: UTF8 national character data type support WIP patch and list of open issues.