From: Jochem van Dieten <jochemd@oli.tudelft.nl>
To: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: Select performance vs. mssql
Date: Fri, 08 Jul 2005 23:47:27 +0200
Message-ID: <42CEF46F.4060308@oli.tudelft.nl> (raw)
References: <20050708140024.GB6368@nibiru.borg.metux.de>
Enrico Weigelt wrote:
> Bruno Wolff III wrote:
>>
>> 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.
>
> wouldn't it work well to make this feature optionally for each
> index ? There could be some flag on the index (ie set at create
> time) which tells postgres whether to store mvcc information.
There is no reason to assume it can't work.
There is little reason to assume that it will be the best
solution in many circumstances.
There is a big reason why people are sceptical: there is no patch.
The issue has been debated and beaten to death. People have
formed their opinions and are unlikely to change their position.
If you want to convince people, your best bet is to submit a
patch and have OSDL measure the performance improvement.
Jochem
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: jochemd@oli.tudelft.nl
Subject: Re: Select performance vs. mssql
In-Reply-To: <42CEF46F.4060308@oli.tudelft.nl>
* 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