Re: [HACKERS] LONG

> > I am suggesting the longoid is not the oid of the primary or long*
> > table, but a unque id we assigned just to number all parts of the long*
> > tuple.  I thought that's what your oid was for.
> >
> 
> Unfortunately I couldn't follow this issue correctly. 
> Is the format of long value relation different from Jan's original now ?
> 
>  - At    CREATE   TABLE,   a   long   value   relation   named
>       "_LONG<tablename>" is created for those tables who need it.
>       And of course dropped and truncated appropriate. The schema
>       of this table is
> 
>           rowid       Oid,          -- oid of our main data row

I am suggesting a unique oid just to store this long value.  The new oid
gets stored in the primary table, and on every row of the long* table.


>           rowattno    int2,         -- the attribute number in main data

Not needed anymore.

>           chunk_seq   int4,         -- the part number of this data chunk
>           chunk       text          -- the content of this data chunk

Yes.

>  
> I thought that there's an unique index (rowid,rowattno,chunk_seq).

Index on longoid only.  No need index on longoid and chunk_seq because
you don't need the rows returned in order.


> Seems we could even update partially(specified chunk_seq only)
> without problem.

That could be done, but seems too rare because the new data would have
to be the same length. Doesn't seem worth�it, though others may
disagree. 

--  Bruce Momjian                        |  http://www.op.net/~candle maillist@candle.pha.pa.us            |  (610)
853-3000+  If your life is a hard drive,     |  830 Blythe Avenue +  Christ can be your backup.        |  Drexel Hill,
Pennsylvania19026