Re: Rewriting Free Space Map
От | Alvaro Herrera |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Rewriting Free Space Map |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 20080317003301.GA18580@alvh.no-ip.org обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: Rewriting Free Space Map (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>) |
Ответы |
Re: Rewriting Free Space Map
Re: Rewriting Free Space Map |
Список | pgsql-hackers |
Tom Lane wrote: > The idea that's becoming attractive to me while contemplating the > multiple-maps problem is that we should adopt something similar to > the old Mac OS idea of multiple "forks" in a relation. In addition > to the main data fork which contains the same info as now, there could > be one or more map forks which are separate files in the filesystem. I think something similar could be used to store tuple visibility bits separately from heap tuple data itself, so +1 to this idea. (The rough idea in my head was that you can do an indexscan and look up visibility bits without having to pull the whole heap along; and visibility updates are also cheaper, whether they come from indexscans or heap scans. Of course, the implicit cost is that a seqscan needs to fetch the visibility pages, too; and the locking is more complex.) -- Alvaro Herrera http://www.CommandPrompt.com/ The PostgreSQL Company - Command Prompt, Inc.
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: