Re: A thought on Index Organized Tables

From: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com>
To: Greg Stark <gsstark(at)mit(dot)edu>
Cc: Gokulakannan Somasundaram <gokul007(at)gmail(dot)com>, Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(dot)linnakangas(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers list <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: A thought on Index Organized Tables
Date: 2010-02-22 14:38:34
Message-ID: 20100222143834.GB4629@alvh.no-ip.org
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Greg Stark escribió:
> On Mon, Feb 22, 2010 at 8:18 AM, Gokulakannan Somasundaram
> <gokul007(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> > a) IOT has both table and index in one structure. So no duplication of data
> > b) With visibility maps, we have three structures a) Table b) Index c)
> > Visibility map. So the disk footprint of the same data will be higher in
> > postgres ( 2x + size of the visibility map).
>
> These sound like the same point to me. I don't think we're concerned
> with footprint -- only with how much of that footprint actually needs
> to be scanned. So if we have a solution allowing the scan to only need
> to look at the index then the extra footprint of the table doesn't
> cost anything at run-time. And the visibility map is very small.

Moreover, the visibility map is already there.

--
Alvaro Herrera http://www.CommandPrompt.com/
PostgreSQL Replication, Consulting, Custom Development, 24x7 support

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Alvaro Herrera 2010-02-22 14:42:08 Re: Plans for 9.1, Grouping Sets, disabling multiqueries, contrib module for string, plpgpsm, preload dictionaries
Previous Message Andrew Dunstan 2010-02-22 14:03:42 Re: Time travel on the buildfarm