| From: | Greg Stark <gsstark(at)mit(dot)edu> |
|---|---|
| To: | Gokulakannan Somasundaram <gokul007(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(dot)linnakangas(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers list <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Karl Schnaitter <karlsch(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Subject: | Re: A thought on Index Organized Tables |
| Date: | 2010-02-28 14:02:54 |
| Message-ID: | 407d949e1002280602hb487003x26ee4756404c367@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Sun, Feb 28, 2010 at 6:02 AM, Gokulakannan Somasundaram
<gokul007(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> So just with a addition of 8 bytes per tuple, we can have the snapshot
> stored with the index. Can someone please comment on this?
The transaction information on tuples take 18 bytes plus several info
bits. It's possible just storing a subset of that would be useful but
it's unclear. And I think it would complicate the code if it had to
sometimes fetch the heap tuple to get the rest and sometimes doesn't.
I think you have to take up a simpler project as a first project. This
is a major overhaul of transaction information and it depends on
understanding how a lot of different areas work -- all of which are
very complex tricky areas to understand.
--
greg
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Greg Stark | 2010-02-28 14:12:32 | Re: Avoiding bad prepared-statement plans. |
| Previous Message | Greg Stark | 2010-02-28 13:54:48 | Re: Re: Hot Standby query cancellation and Streaming Replication integration |