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])

Reply via email to