Tom Lane wrote:
> Bruce Momjian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > Tom Lane wrote:
> >> Where was it posted anyway?
> > Found it:
> >     
> >
> Thanks.  The original patch is much older than I thought --- I was
> looking in the November/December part of the archives.
> > Personally, because frequently accessed duplicates appear more forward
> > in the duplicate index, I think the sorting is only valuable when
> > creating a new index.
> Yes, and that's what this does.  Looking back, the original discussion
> got a little confused because the TODO item about "order duplicate index
> entries by tid" got brought into the mix.  Actually this patch has
> nothing to do with that, because it only acts during btree creation not
> during index updates.
> On inspection I have no problem with the patch, only with the comments ;-)
> If you like I'll revise the comments and apply.

Great.  Seems harmless and he showed good performance with it.  I agree
the discussion got confused, and that is why I kept it in my mailbox to

  Bruce Momjian                        |
  [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 4: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster

Reply via email to