Where are we on this? It seems like a win to me. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Manfred Koizar wrote: > On Mon, 01 Dec 2003 13:32:10 -0500, Tom Lane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >Manfred Koizar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > >> comparetup_index() compares two IndexTuples. The structure > >> IndexTupleData consists basically of not much more than an ItemPointer, > >> and the patch is not much more than adding a comparison of two > >> ItemPointers. So how does the patch introduce a new low level > >> implementation dependency? > > > >Because it sorts on tuple position, which is certainly about as low > >level as you can get. > > The patch affects only the sort during index creation. Mapping key > values to tuple positions is the sole purpose of an index. The notion > that an index should not care for tuple positions looks a bit strange to > me. > > > More to the point, though, no evidence has been > >provided that this is a good idea. > > The test script I posted with the patch shows that the patch produces > more efficient b-tree indices when there are lots of duplicates. > > Servus > Manfred > > ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- > TIP 4: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster > -- Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us [EMAIL PROTECTED] | (610) 359-1001 + If your life is a hard drive, | 13 Roberts Road + Christ can be your backup. | Newtown Square, Pennsylvania 19073 ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 2: you can get off all lists at once with the unregister command (send "unregister YourEmailAddressHere" to [EMAIL PROTECTED])
