On Mon, Apr 16, 2012 at 9:12 PM, Jeff Davis <[email protected]> wrote:
> That had occurred to me, but I was hesitant to only use temp indexes. It > still doesn't really offer a good solution when both sides of the join > are relatively large (because of random I/O). Also the build speed of > the index would be more important than it is now. The thing I like most about temp indexes is that they needn't be temporary. I'd like to see something along the lines of demand-created optional indexes, that we reclaim space/maintenance overhead on according to some cache management scheme. More space you have, the more of the important ones hang around. The rough same idea applies to materialised views. -- Simon Riggs http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list ([email protected]) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
