On Thu, Sep 5, 2013 at 10:59 AM, Alvaro Herrera <alvhe...@2ndquadrant.com> wrote: > Satoshi Nagayasu wrote: > >> But, for now, I think we should have a real index for the >> statistics data because we already have several index storages, >> and it will allow us to minimize read/write operations. >> >> BTW, what kind of index would be preferred for this purpose? >> btree or hash? > > I find it hard to get excited about using the AM interface for this > purpose. To me it makes a lot more sense to have separate, much > simpler code. We don't need any transactionality, user defined types, > user defined operators, or anything like that.
+1. But, would not rewriting a lot of existing functionalities potentially lead to points of contention and/or much more effort? Regards, Atri -- Regards, Atri l'apprenant -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers