Re: estimating # of distinct values
От | Jim Nasby |
---|---|
Тема | Re: estimating # of distinct values |
Дата | |
Msg-id | E132F02B-FB5C-48C4-B52D-EA018D9636F4@nasby.net обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: estimating # of distinct values (Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>) |
Ответы |
Re: estimating # of distinct values
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
On Jan 17, 2011, at 8:11 PM, Robert Haas wrote: > On Mon, Jan 17, 2011 at 7:56 PM, Jim Nasby <jim@nasby.net> wrote: >> - Forks are very possibly a more efficient way to deal with TOAST than having separate tables. There's a fair amount ofoverhead we pay for the current setup. > > That seems like an interesting idea, but I actually don't see why it > would be any more efficient, and it seems like you'd end up > reinventing things like vacuum and free space map management. The FSM would take some effort, but I don't think vacuum would be that hard to deal with; you'd just have to free up thespace in any referenced toast forks at the same time that you vacuumed the heap. >> - Dynamic forks would make it possible to do a column-store database, or at least something approximating one. > > I've been wondering whether we could do something like this by > treating a table t with columns pk, a1, a2, a3, b1, b2, b3 as two > tables t1 and t2, one with columns pk, a1, a2, a3 and the other with > columns pk, b1, b2, b3. SELECT * FROM t would be translated into > SELECT * FROM t1, t2 WHERE t1.pk = t2.pk. Possibly, but you'd be paying tuple overhead twice, which is what I was looking to avoid with forks. -- Jim C. Nasby, Database Architect jim@nasby.net 512.569.9461 (cell) http://jim.nasby.net
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: