On 6/5/15 11:07 AM, deavid wrote:
Did I miss something?
These are interesting ideas but the problem here is the problem is far to hypothetical. You're trying to defer index maintenance cost in a case where if there's any real problem the index pages are already in memory. So if it's too slow it's not because of IO... but then why is it too slow?
If you have significantly more than 10M rows then IO would be much more likely to be a problem, but at that point you should probably just be partitioning anyway.
If you want to attract attention here I think you'll need to come up with some concrete scenarios and provide data on where all the performance hit actually is.
-- Jim Nasby, Data Architect, Blue Treble Consulting, Austin TX Data in Trouble? Get it in Treble! http://BlueTreble.com -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
