Rod Taylor wrote:
grow by about 40GB if this was done. Storage isn't that cheap when you
include the hot-backup master, various slaves, RAM for caching of this
additional index space, backup storage unit on the SAN, tape backups,
additional spindles required to maintain same performance due to
increased IO because I don't very many queries which would receive an
advantage (big one for me -- we started buying spindles for performance
a long time ago), etc.
Thanks for the calculation and example. This would be a hefty amount of
overhead if none of your queries would benefit from this change.
Make it a new index type if you like, but don't impose any new
performance constraints on folks who have little to no advantage from
the above proposal.
I agree with you that some people may not see any benefit from this and
that it may look worse performance/storage-wise. I've considered this
route, but it seems like more of a workaround than a solution.
---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 7: don't forget to increase your free space map settings
