Re: Add primary key/unique constraint using prefix columns of an index
От | Simon Riggs |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Add primary key/unique constraint using prefix columns of an index |
Дата | |
Msg-id | CA+U5nMLegCLHfehp40+dKUk6Db++K-REKNVJsQSD5P97=g6u+Q@mail.gmail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: Add primary key/unique constraint using prefix columns of an index (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>) |
Список | pgsql-hackers |
On 22 May 2012 18:41, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > It'd be better to work on index-organized tables My earlier analysis showed that IOTs are essentially the same thing as block-level indexes, referred to as GITs by Heikki. (Robert referred to these as Lossy Indexes recently, which was not the case - that aspect was exactly the reason for rejection previously, so we should not retread that path - indexes can operate at block level without being lossy). The number of index pointers is identical in each case, so IOTs are not any more efficient in terms of space usage or I/O. IOTs are much more difficult to implement, so I can't see any reason to work on them. For example, having heap rows migrate on a block split will cause havoc with our index implementation. We haven't worked out how to re-join blocks that have split while maintaining concurrency, so IOTs would require some pretty drastic repacking with a severe lock type. Please lets avoid IOTs. -- Simon Riggs http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: