| From: | tomas(at)tuxteam(dot)de |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com>, Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Rewriting Free Space Map |
| Date: | 2008-03-18 08:03:07 |
| Message-ID: | 20080318080307.GB29147@www.trapp.net |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
On Mon, Mar 17, 2008 at 01:23:46PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> writes:
> >> 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.
>
> > Can we call them "maps" or "metadata maps"? "forks" sounds weird.
Actually, I do like "forks", but to add a little bit diversity:
facets? aspects?
FWIW, the idea of mapping a relation to a directory quite compelling.
Regards
- -- tomás
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFH33c7Bcgs9XrR2kYRAuBQAJ9MjISqgn37umRIydxtUBYONORwDgCbBKkE
y7adUy7s/30TxQPQiJZZejA=
=PAQ9
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Gregory Stark | 2008-03-18 09:00:27 | Re: count(*) performance improvement ideas |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2008-03-18 04:18:10 | Re: count(*) performance improvement ideas |