Received: from localhost.localdomain (postgresql.org [64.49.215.8]) by localhost (Postfix) with ESMTP id 28518477017 for ; Thu, 27 Jun 2002 12:10:40 -0400 (EDT) Mailbox-Line: From gunther@aurora.regenstrief.org Thu Jun 27 12:10:40 2002 Received: from aurora.regenstrief.org (aurora.regenstrief.org [134.68.31.122]) by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A31154771CE for ; Thu, 27 Jun 2002 11:19:03 -0400 (EDT) Received: from aurora.regenstrief.org (rgnout.regenstrief.org [134.68.31.38]) by aurora.regenstrief.org (8.11.6/8.9.3) with ESMTP id g5RFJGO84321; Thu, 27 Jun 2002 10:19:16 -0500 (EST) (envelope-from gunther@aurora.regenstrief.org) Message-ID: <3D1B2CE9.3080709@aurora.regenstrief.org> Date: Thu, 27 Jun 2002 10:19:05 -0500 From: Gunther Schadow Organization: Regenstrief Institute for Health Care User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-US; rv:0.9.4) Gecko/20011019 Netscape6/6.2 X-Accept-Language: en-us MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Tom Lane Cc: pgsql-sql@postgresql.org Subject: Re: Possibility of Index-Only access in PostgreSQL? References: <3D19FFCF.8030800@aurora.regenstrief.org> <16546.1025132344@sss.pgh.pa.us> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-0.1 required=5.0 tests=SUBJ_ENDS_IN_Q_MARK version=2.30 X-Spam-Level: X-Archive-Number: 200206/367 X-Sequence-Number: 8332 Tom Lane wrote: > It won't happen. See the many, many prior discussions of this point in > the archives. Hmm, I searched the archives both in my local mailbox and on Google, could you give me some pointer to a relevant thread? I certainly want to learn from past discussions. So, it's that MVCC issue? I will then pursue distributing indexes and tables over more spindles and will also consider CLUSTERing the table (although that's difficult for two *different* use cases I have.) However, when everything is said and done, the "it won't happen" still sounds frightening to me. It puts PostgreSQL at a BIG disadvantage, limiting it to 150 records per second random access ceiling when the data needed is really all available for sequential index scan. I'm eager to learn more about it and may be put versioning into the index rows (or whatever it is.) Who am I to doubt Tom Lane's words "it won't happen"? But isn't this a very serious conclusion? In any of this we have that challenge/competition with Oracle in mind, want it or not. If we want to use PostgreSQL seriously for our medical record, an "it won't happen" answer can make a huge negative impression on those I am working with. PostgreSQL for our medical record system -- it won't happen!? ... Heck no! This can't be the answer! regards -Gunther -- Gunther Schadow, M.D., Ph.D. gschadow@regenstrief.org Medical Information Scientist Regenstrief Institute for Health Care Adjunct Assistant Professor Indiana University School of Medicine tel:1(317)630-7960 http://aurora.regenstrief.org