Rod Taylor wrote:
>
>grow by about 40GB if this was done. Storage isn't that cheap when you
>include the hot-backup master, various slaves, RAM for caching of this
>additional index space, backup storage unit on the SAN, tape backups,
>additional spindles required to maintain same performance due to
>increased IO because I don't very many queries which would receive an
>advantage (big one for me -- we started buying spindles for performance
>a long time ago), etc.
>
>
Thanks for the calculation and example. This would be a hefty amount of
overhead if none of your queries would benefit from this change.
>Make it a new index type if you like, but don't impose any new
>performance constraints on folks who have little to no advantage from
>the above proposal.
>
>
I agree with you that some people may not see any benefit from this and
that it may look worse performance/storage-wise. I've considered this
route, but it seems like more of a workaround than a solution.
