Re: Berkeley DB...
От | Bruce Momjian |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Berkeley DB... |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 200005220311.XAA09565@candle.pha.pa.us обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | RE: Berkeley DB... ("Mikheev, Vadim" <vmikheev@SECTORBASE.COM>) |
Список | pgsql-hackers |
[Charset iso-8859-1 unsupported, filtering to ASCII...] > > > And, while we are on heap subject - using index (RECNO) for heap > > > means that all our secondary-index scans will performe TWO > > > index scans - first, to find recno in secondary-index, and > > > second, to find heap tuple using recno (now indices give us > > > TID, which is physical address). > > > > Yes, that was one of my questions. Why use recno at all? We already > > have heap access which is very fast. Why switch to SDB which gives us > > a recno ordering of heap that doesn't do us any real good, except to > > allow tuple update without changing indexes. > > But if we'll use our heap AM, then we'll have to implement redo/undo > for it... no sence to switch to SDB for btree/hash WAL support -:) Yes, SDB would give us redo/undo in heap, and that would make things easier. However, if there is the overhead of a double-index lookup when using indexes, it seems like a very high cost. -- Bruce Momjian | http://www.op.net/~candle pgman@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
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: