From: Josh Berkus <josh@agliodbs.com>
To: mark durrant <markd89@yahoo.com>
Cc: Bruno Wolff III <bruno@wolff.to>
Cc: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: Select performance vs. mssql
Date: Tue, 24 May 2005 16:35:14 -0700
Message-ID: <200505241635.14558.josh@agliodbs.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20050524191328.58243.qmail@web53110.mail.yahoo.com>
References: <20050524191328.58243.qmail@web53110.mail.yahoo.com>
Folks,
> > This gets brought up a lot. The problem is that the
> > index doesn't include
> > information about whether the current transaction
> > can see the referenced
> > row. Putting this information in the index will add
> > significant overhead
> > to every update and the opinion of the developers is
> > that this would be
> > a net loss overall.
Pretty much. There has been discussion about allowing index-only access to
"frozen" tables, i.e. archive partitions. But it all sort of hinges on
someone implementing it and testing ....
--
--Josh
Josh Berkus
Aglio Database Solutions
San Francisco
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Reply to all the recipients using the --to and --cc options:
reply via email
To: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org
Cc: josh@agliodbs.com, markd89@yahoo.com, bruno@wolff.to
Subject: Re: Select performance vs. mssql
In-Reply-To: <200505241635.14558.josh@agliodbs.com>
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
This inbox is served by DDX for PostgreSQL; see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox