Re: [GENERAL] Fast join
От | Chris Bitmead |
---|---|
Тема | Re: [GENERAL] Fast join |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 377AB9DE.B9363540@ozemail.com.au обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: [GENERAL] Fast join (Bruce Momjian <maillist@candle.pha.pa.us>) |
Список | pgsql-general |
Leon wrote: > And more: would you make a cool data type, a reference, > which is a physical record number of a foreign record? > This could make certain type of joins VERY fast, too good > to be true. Such thing is really an incorporation of > elements of networking (networked? :) data model into > relational model. When you say "a physical record number", I assume you mean some reference to where the record is stored on disk. There are a number of problems with this. One is space reclaimation. You can't re-use space anymore because if you put a new record in the place where the old record was there would be an integrity problem. If you somehow solve that there is still the problem that you can't move a record when it gets bigger or you want to re-organise the database. Backups become problematic. In actual fact, you don't need physical record ids to make things blindingly quick. Object databases like Versant have proved that. Although I've got no doubt their record-id lookup is massively optimised for the special case and I'd say it's significantly faster than most relation database indexes, but the principle is no different. Record ids are good. Physical record ids are bad.
В списке pgsql-general по дате отправления: