"Jim C. Nasby" <decibel@xxxxxxxxxxx> writes: > What's the challange to making it adaptive, comming up with an algorithm > that gives you the optimal bucket size (which I would think there's > research on...) or allowing the index to accommodate different bucket > sizes existing in the index at once? (Presumably you don't want to > re-write the entire index every time it looks like a different bucket > size would help.) Exactly. That's (a) expensive and (b) really hard to fit into the WAL paradigm --- I think we could only handle it as a REINDEX. So if it were adaptive at all I think we'd have to support multiple bucket sizes existing simultaneously in the index, and I do not see a good way to do that. Allowing a bucket size to be specified at CREATE INDEX doesn't seem out of line though. We'd have to think up a scheme for index-AM-specific index parameters ... regards, tom lane ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 7: don't forget to increase your free space map settings
