Re: A thought on Index Organized Tables
От | Greg Stark |
---|---|
Тема | Re: A thought on Index Organized Tables |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 407d949e1002220229w1e781755jd1754dbf94201ba7@mail.gmail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: A thought on Index Organized Tables (Gokulakannan Somasundaram <gokul007@gmail.com>) |
Ответы |
Re: A thought on Index Organized Tables
Re: A thought on Index Organized Tables |
Список | pgsql-hackers |
On Mon, Feb 22, 2010 at 8:18 AM, Gokulakannan Somasundaram <gokul007@gmail.com> wrote: > a) IOT has both table and index in one structure. So no duplication of data > b) With visibility maps, we have three structures a) Table b) Index c) > Visibility map. So the disk footprint of the same data will be higher in > postgres ( 2x + size of the visibility map). These sound like the same point to me. I don't think we're concerned with footprint -- only with how much of that footprint actually needs to be scanned. So if we have a solution allowing the scan to only need to look at the index then the extra footprint of the table doesn't cost anything at run-time. And the visibility map is very small. I think you would be better off looking for incremental improvements rather than major architectural changes like having no heap for a table. There are so many design decisions hinged on having a heap that it would be impractical to rethink them all. -- greg
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: