On Tue, Nov 5, 2013 at 12:22 PM, Leonardo Francalanci <m_li...@yahoo.it> wrote: > Claudio Freire wrote >> you haven't really >> analyzed update cost, which is what we were talking about in that last >> post. > > I don't care for a better update cost if the cost to query is a table scan. > Otherwise, I'll just claim that no index at all is even better than minmax: > 0 update cost, pretty much same query time. > > Maybe there's value in minmax indexes for sequential data, but not for > random data, which is the topic of this thread.
Well, of course, they're not magic pixie dust. But is your data really random? (or normal?) That's the thing... -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
