| From: | Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | "Mikheev, Vadim" <vmikheev(at)SECTORBASE(dot)COM> |
| Cc: | "'Michael A(dot) Olson'" <mao(at)sleepycat(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Berkeley DB... |
| Date: | 2000-05-22 02:22:14 |
| Message-ID: | 200005220222.WAA03508@candle.pha.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
> And, while we are on heap subject - using index (RECNO) for heap
> means that all our secondary-index scans will performe TWO
> index scans - first, to find recno in secondary-index, and
> second, to find heap tuple using recno (now indices give us
> TID, which is physical address).
Yes, that was one of my questions. Why use recno at all? We already
have heap access which is very fast. Why switch to SDB which gives us
a recno ordering of heap that doesn't do us any real good, except to
allow tuple update without changing indexes.
--
Bruce Momjian | http://www.op.net/~candle
pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us | (610) 853-3000
+ If your life is a hard drive, | 830 Blythe Avenue
+ Christ can be your backup. | Drexel Hill, Pennsylvania 19026
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Lamar Owen | 2000-05-22 02:26:54 | Re: PostgreSQL 7.0-2 RPMset released. |
| Previous Message | Chris Bitmead | 2000-05-22 02:05:18 | Re: Thus spoke SQL3 (on OO) |