On 5 November 2013 08:32, Leonardo Francalanci <m_li...@yahoo.it> wrote: > Simon Riggs wrote >> Everybody on this thread is advised to look closely at Min Max indexes >> before starting any further work. >> >> MinMax will give us access to many new kinds of plan, plus they are >> about as close to perfectly efficient, by which I mean almost zero >> overhead, with regard to inserts as it is possible to get. > > Simon, I don't understand how minmax indexes would help in a random-inserts > scenario. > While I would love to use minmax for other columns (since we also partition > and search based on a timestamp, which is usually well clustered), I thought > minmax index would be perfect in a mostly-incremental values scenario.
Minmax indexes seem to surprise many people, so broad generalisations aren't likely to be useful. I think the best thing to do is to publish some SQL requests that demonstrate in detail what you are trying to achieve and test them against minmax indexes. That way we can discuss what does work and what doesn't work well enough yet. -- Simon Riggs http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
