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

From Claudio Freire
Subject Re: Fast insertion indexes: why no developments
Date
Msg-id CAGTBQpYyTYo1wq=wZm6xUv9UXonBiZuhOE9FV-2o6XJO6xr_pw@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Fast insertion indexes: why no developments  (Leonardo Francalanci <m_lists@yahoo.it>)
Responses Re: Fast insertion indexes: why no developments  (Leonardo Francalanci <m_lists@yahoo.it>)
List pgsql-hackers
On Tue, Nov 5, 2013 at 11:28 AM, Leonardo Francalanci <m_lists@yahoo.it> wrote:
> I get > 9000 pages for 49 values out of 50... which means scanning 90% of
> the table.
>
> Either my sql is not correct (likely), or my understanding of the minmax
> index is
> not correct (even more likely), or the minmax index is not usable in a
> random inputs
> scenario.


Yep, you're correct. That's the cost for querying random values.

But, both real data isn't truly random, and you haven't really
analyzed update cost, which is what we were talking about in that last
post.



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: pgsql: Remove internal uses of CTimeZone/HasCTZSet.
Next
From: Andres Freund
Date:
Subject: Re: logical changeset generation v6.5