On Fri, 2009-04-03 at 18:03 +0100, Greg Stark wrote: > I wonder if we need a whole class of index algorithms to deal > specifically with read-only tables
I think we can drop the word "index" from the sentence as well. "Read-only" isn't an isolated case. Often you find many read-only tables alongside rapidly changing tables. So even the busiest of databases can benefit from read-only optimisations. So I want MVCC *and* read only, not MVCC everywhere (or MVCC nowhere if customer changes horses to get read-only benefits elsewhere). Having changes to those tables cause much heavier additional work is OK, if judged on a cost/benefit basis. So the case I care about ought to be called "read-mostly" but we're talking write:read ratios of millions:1. -- Simon Riggs www.2ndQuadrant.com PostgreSQL Training, Services and Support -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
