From: | Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> |
Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Block B-Tree concept |
Date: | 2006-09-26 12:13:06 |
Message-ID: | 200609261213.k8QCD6P06043@momjian.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
> Tom Lane wrote:
> > Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> writes:
> >
> >> I've been experimenting with the idea of a so-called Block B-Tree. The
> >> basic idea is that instead of storing an index tuple for each heap
> >> tuple, we store an index tuple for each heap block. This dramatically
> >> reduces the size of an index, leading to savings on I/O.
> >>
> >
> > VACUUM?
> >
> There's a few options that I've thought of this far:
>
> 1. Whenever a tuple is found dead on page X, vacuum of the index will
> have to go to that page again to see if there's any matching tuples left.
Right now, if an index entry points to a dead tuple, we set a bit in
the index so future lookups do not access the heap. We could set a bit
for block index entries that point to a page that has no live rows, and
have vacuum remove the index entry later.
--
Bruce Momjian bruce(at)momjian(dot)us
EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com
+ If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. +
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Peter Eisentraut | 2006-09-26 12:19:50 | Re: Questions about guc units |
Previous Message | Markus Schaber | 2006-09-26 12:06:56 | Re: Release Notes: Major Changes in 8.2 |