From: | "Steinar H(dot) Gunderson" <sgunderson(at)bigfoot(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: index as large as table |
Date: | 2005-08-20 15:10:25 |
Message-ID: | 20050820151025.GA12890@uio.no |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-performance |
On Sat, Aug 20, 2005 at 11:08:13PM +1000, Gavin Sherry wrote:
> Of course. The idea is that, generally speaking, you're only interested in
> a small portion of the data stored in the table. Indexes store extra data
> so that they can locate the portion you're interested in faster.
I think his question was more why you needed the data in itself, when you had
everything you needed in the index anyway. (Actually, you don't -- indexes
don't carry MVCC information, but I guess that's a bit beside the point.)
There has been discussion on "heap tables" or whatever you'd want to call
them (ie. tables that are organized as a B+-tree on some index) here before;
I guess the archives would be a reasonable place to start looking.
/* Steinar */
--
Homepage: http://www.sesse.net/
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Ron | 2005-08-20 15:59:32 | Re: extremly low memory usage |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2005-08-20 14:40:41 | Re: extremly low memory usage |