On Wed, 12 Jan 2005, Jonah H. Harris wrote:
Andrew Dunstan wrote:
We seem to be in agreement. I'm looking for faster/smarter access to data, not the monetary cost of doing so. Isn't it faster/smarter to satisfy a query with the index rather than sequentially scanning an entire relation if it is possible?Monetary cost is not the issue - cost in time is the issue.
Replying to the list as a whole:
If this is such a bad idea, why do other database systems use it? As a businessperson myself, it doesn't seem logical to me that commercial database companies would spend money on implementing this feature if it wouldn't be used. Remember guys, I'm just trying to help.
If you're willing to do the work, and have the motivation, probably the best thing to do is just do it. Then you can use empirical measurements of the effect on disk space, speed of various operations, etc. to discuss the merits/demerits of your particular implementation.
Then others don't need to feel so threatened by the potential change. Either it'll be (1) an obvious win, or (2) a mixed bag, where allowing the new way to be specified as an option is a possibility, or (3) you'll have to go back to the drawing board if it's an obvious loss.
This problem's been talked about a lot, but seeing some code and metrics from someone with a personal interest in solving it would really be progress IMHO.
Jon
-- Jon Jensen End Point Corporation http://www.endpoint.com/ Software development with Interchange, Perl, PostgreSQL, Apache, Linux, ...
---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 6: Have you searched our list archives?
http://archives.postgresql.org
