Re: Rewriting Free Space Map

From: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Rewriting Free Space Map
Date: 2008-03-17 00:33:02
Message-ID: 20080317003301.GA18580@alvh.no-ip.org
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Tom Lane wrote:

> The idea that's becoming attractive to me while contemplating the
> multiple-maps problem is that we should adopt something similar to
> the old Mac OS idea of multiple "forks" in a relation. In addition
> to the main data fork which contains the same info as now, there could
> be one or more map forks which are separate files in the filesystem.

I think something similar could be used to store tuple visibility bits
separately from heap tuple data itself, so +1 to this idea.

(The rough idea in my head was that you can do an indexscan and look
up visibility bits without having to pull the whole heap along; and
visibility updates are also cheaper, whether they come from indexscans
or heap scans. Of course, the implicit cost is that a seqscan needs to
fetch the visibility pages, too; and the locking is more complex.)

--
Alvaro Herrera http://www.CommandPrompt.com/
The PostgreSQL Company - Command Prompt, Inc.

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Bruce Momjian 2008-03-17 01:31:38 Re: Commit fest?
Previous Message Tom Lane 2008-03-16 22:42:35 Re: Single table forcing sequential scans on query plans