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 1384346566182-5778125.post@n5.nabble.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Fast insertion indexes: why no developments  (Jeremy Harris <jgh@wizmail.org>)
List pgsql-hackers
Jeremy Harris wrote
> Surely there's good correlation between IMSI & IMEI, so have a separate
> table to translate one to (a group of) the others, and
> halve the indexes on your main table?

Yes; unfortunately not always both are available; but it's something
we are thinking about (it requires logic in the "inserting application"
that at the moment doesn't exist, but it is something that we'll
have to add sooner or later).
But in the end yes, trying to use less indexed-fields is a good path.



--
View this message in context:
http://postgresql.1045698.n5.nabble.com/Fast-insertion-indexes-why-no-developments-tp5776227p5778125.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: Steve Singer
Date:
Subject: Re: logical changeset generation v6.5