From: PFC <lists@boutiquenumerique.com>
To: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: Select performance vs. mssql
Date: Wed, 25 May 2005 02:14:01 +0200
Message-ID: <op.sra1lngnth1vuj@localhost> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <200505241635.14558.josh@agliodbs.com>
References: <20050524191328.58243.qmail@web53110.mail.yahoo.com>
<200505241635.14558.josh@agliodbs.com>
> 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 ....
Would be interesting as a parameter to set at index creation (ie. if you
know this table will have a lot of reads and few writes)... like create an
index on columns X,Y keeping data on columns X,Y and Z...
But in this case do you still need the table ?
Or even create a table type where the table and the index are one, like
an auto-clustered table...
I don't know if it would be used that often, though ;)
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: lists@boutiquenumerique.com
Subject: Re: Select performance vs. mssql
In-Reply-To: <op.sra1lngnth1vuj@localhost>
* 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