Di., 20. Apr. 2021 23:50 Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > There's enough support these days that you can build a new index > type as an extension, without touching the core code at all.
Thanks. I'm ramping up knowledge about extending PG with C++. I'm still interested to understand in principle what an index has to do with concurrency control, in order to divide concerns/reponsibilities of code. Di., 20. Apr. 2021 23:51 Uhr Peter Geoghegan <p...@bowt.ie> wrote: > It's easy for me to be a skeptic Isn't being skeptic a requirement for all of us to be a db engineer :-) > but much less uncertainty about the outcome of alternative projects of > comparable difficulty Oh. As mentioned above I'm trying to get an overview of indices. So, if you have hints about other new indexes (like PGM, VODKA for text/ts, or Hippo), I'm interested. ~Stefan Am Di., 20. Apr. 2021 um 23:51 Uhr schrieb Peter Geoghegan <p...@bowt.ie>: > > On Tue, Apr 20, 2021 at 2:29 PM Stefan Keller <sfkel...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Just for the records: A learned index as no more foreknowledge about > > the dataset as other indices. > > Maybe. ML models are famously prone to over-interpreting training > data. In any case I am simply not competent to assess how true this > is. > > > I'd give learned indexes at least a change to provide a > > proof-of-concept. And I want to learn more about the requirements to > > be accepted as a new index (before undergoing month's of code > > sprints). > > I have everything to gain and nothing to lose by giving them a chance > -- I'm not required to do anything to give them a chance, after all. I > just want to be clear that I'm a skeptic now rather than later. I'm > not the one making a big investment of my time here. > > > As you may have seen, the "Stonebraker paper" I cited [1] is also > > sceptic requiring full parity on features (like "concurrency control, > > recovery, non main memory,and multi-user settings")! Non main memory > > code I understand. > > => But index read/write operations and multi-user settings are part of > > a separate software (transaction manager), aren't they? > > It's easy for me to be a skeptic -- again, what do I have to lose by > freely expressing my opinion? Mostly I'm just saying that I wouldn't > work on this because ISTM that there is significant uncertainty about > the outcome, but much less uncertainty about the outcome of > alternative projects of comparable difficulty. That's fundamentally > how I assess what to work on. There is plenty of uncertainty on my end > -- but that's beside the point. > > -- > Peter Geoghegan
