Re: Further open item (Was: Status of 7.2) - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Peter Eisentraut
Subject Re: Further open item (Was: Status of 7.2)
Date
Msg-id Pine.LNX.4.30.0111161710190.644-100000@peter.localdomain
Whole thread Raw
In response to Further open item (Was: Status of 7.2)  ("Tille, Andreas" <TilleA@rki.de>)
Responses Re: Further open item (Was: Status of 7.2)
Re: Further open item (Was: Status of 7.2)
List pgsql-hackers
Tille, Andreas writes:

> > Sorry, I´m really unable to send patches but I have a feature request
> > which was addressed in the thread "Serious performance problem" on this
> > list.  It mainly concerns the performance increase if there would be
> > an index scan method which doesn´t have to check the validity of data
> > in the table.

> I just want to know now if this is an issue for PostgreSQL hackers:
>
>    [ ] yes
>    [ ] no
>    [ ] we are discussing about that

We are always willing to discuss changes that improve performance,
reliability, standards compliance, etc.  However, "MS SQL does it, and MS
SQL is fast" is not sufficient proof that a feature would improve average
performance in PostgreSQL.  This issue has been brought up with similarly
unsatisfactory arguments in the past, so you should be able to find out
about the discussion in the archives.  Some of the arguments against this
change were bigger indexes, slower write operations, non-existent proof
that it's really faster, putting the index on a different disk will mostly
obsolete the issue.  Consequently, this is currently not something that
has got a chance to be implemented anytime soon.

-- 
Peter Eisentraut   peter_e@gmx.net



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Stephan Szabo
Date:
Subject: Re: Further open item (Was: Status of 7.2)
Next
From: teg@redhat.com (Trond Eivind Glomsrød)
Date:
Subject: 7.2b2 "make check" failure on Red Hat Linux 7.2