Re: A thought on Index Organized Tables

Поиск
Список
Период
Сортировка
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  (Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@commandprompt.com>)
Re: A thought on Index Organized Tables  (Csaba Nagy <ncslists@googlemail.com>)
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:

Предыдущее
От: Simon Riggs
Дата:
Сообщение: Re: scheduler in core
Следующее
От: Gokulakannan Somasundaram
Дата:
Сообщение: Re: A thought on Index Organized Tables