1. 30

A very thorough response to this story

  1.  

  2. 2

    Very detailed analysis. It sounds pretty fair to me.

    1. 1

      Wow, this author knows their stuff!

      I look forward to digesting it later

      1. 1

        Anyone know what works would be need to remove this limiation to postgresql “PostgreSQL always needs to update all indexes on a table when updating rows in the table. ” ?

        1. 6

          I think that’s a natural consequence of the storage format. The index contains the physical address of the target row. If you update the row (which will move it on disk) the index needs to be updated with the new address.

          You could do what MySQL does and store logical addresses, and then only update the logical to physical index, but I’d say that’s a big change.

          What’s not mentioned is the possibility of splitting the table. I know nothing of the schema, but putting the changing data in a separate table with a foreign key may reduce the writes involved.