Pavan Deolasee wrote:
> IMHO we are making full circles here. We have already tried LP_DELETE
> techniques
> and moved away to simplify things. We also tried reusing dead space without
> running PageRepairFragmentation. Each of these techniques worked just fine
> with slightly different performance characteristics. What we now have is a
> simplified algorithm which is much easier to follow and is safer, yet giving
> us a very good performance boost. I am not sure if this is the right time to
> throw new ideas because we would never be sure as what we are doing
> would be the most optimal solution. Would it help if we go with some
> solution right now, get rest of the review process done and then use
> the feedback during beta testing to tune things ? We may have far more
> data points at that time to choose one technique over other. And we
> would also know what areas to focus on.

I totally understand.  I was just throwing out ideas to make sure I
fully understood it and to explore various options.  I do agree we
should just wait for the review, knowing we have these trade-offs.

  Bruce Momjian  <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

  + If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. +

---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 9: In versions below 8.0, the planner will ignore your desire to
       choose an index scan if your joining column's datatypes do not

Reply via email to