On Thu, 5 Mar 2009, Robert Haas wrote:
On Thu, Mar 5, 2009 at 6:35 PM, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
Attached is the remainder of the patch with relatively minor fixes.
The main change I made is to get rid of the changes in gincostestimate;
I agree with Robert that it's probably inappropriate to consider the
current pending-list size during planning. I haven't really reviewed
any of the rest of it; this is just to have a clean patch against HEAD.
The changes to config.sgml are not good English and contain
typographical errors. It could also be a bit more informatiave, maybe
something like:
This parameter also specifies the number of insert or updated tuples
needed to trigger <command>VACUUM</> on a <acronym>GIN</acronym>
index. <acronym>GIN</acronym> indexes require <command>VACUUM</>
after insert or update operations because newly inserted tuples are
initially stored in an unsorted pending list.
thanks, will update docs.
I still think removing index scans entirely is short-sighted - but I
may be outvoted (then again, no one other than Tom has really
expressed an opinion one way or the other, and I initially agreed with
him until I thought about the performance aspects some more).
I'm also wonder if we're on the right way, since the only serious
issue with indexscan was possible problem with slaves, but read-only slaves
delayed to 8.5, so this is not an issue now. In 8.5 development cycle we'll
certainly return to this issue, so why do we disable index scan for 8.4 ?
Regards,
Oleg
_____________________________________________________________
Oleg Bartunov, Research Scientist, Head of AstroNet (www.astronet.ru),
Sternberg Astronomical Institute, Moscow University, Russia
Internet: o...@sai.msu.su, http://www.sai.msu.su/~megera/
phone: +007(495)939-16-83, +007(495)939-23-83
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
