Re: Why we lost Uber as a user
От | Jim Nasby |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Why we lost Uber as a user |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 552286e5-5721-1f40-db29-da0b8195cb43@BlueTreble.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: Why we lost Uber as a user (Alex Ignatov <a.ignatov@postgrespro.ru>) |
Ответы |
Re: Why we lost Uber as a user
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
On 7/28/16 10:05 AM, Alex Ignatov wrote: >> Just curious: what if PostgreSQL supported index that stores "primary >> key" (or unique key) instead of tids? > > You mean IOT like Oracle have? IIRC, IOT either stores the table in index order, which is something different. What Alex is proposing is an index method that stores a datum instead of a ctid. You would then use that datum to probe a different index to get the ctid. Or put simply, you have a PK index that contains ctid's, and a bunch of other indexes that contain a PK value instead of ctid's. I think it's an idea worth pursuing, but I don't see how you can make it work with our MVCC system unless we drop the aversion to scanning back into an index as part of an update. -- Jim Nasby, Data Architect, Blue Treble Consulting, Austin TX Experts in Analytics, Data Architecture and PostgreSQL Data in Trouble? Get it in Treble! http://BlueTreble.com 855-TREBLE2 (855-873-2532) mobile: 512-569-9461
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: