Re: Index location patch for review
Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
To: "Mikheev, Vadim" <vmikheev@SECTORBASE.COM>
Cc: "'Bruce Momjian'" <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us>, jim@buttafuoco.net, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>
Date: 2001-09-12T17:54:02Z
Lists: pgsql-hackers
"Mikheev, Vadim" <vmikheev@SECTORBASE.COM> writes: > The more general and "standard" way to go are TABLESPACEs. > But probably proposed feature will be compatible with > tablespaces, when we'll got them: Will it be? I'm afraid of creating a backwards-compatibility problem for ourselves when it comes time to implement tablespaces. At the very least I'd like to see some information demonstrating how much benefit there is to this proposed patch, before we consider whether to adopt it. If there's a significant performance benefit to splitting a PG database along the table-vs-index divide, then it's interesting as a short-term improvement ... but Jim didn't even make that assertion, let alone provide evidence to back it up. regards, tom lane