Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: A thought on Index Organized Tables

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 (view raw or flat)
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

In response to

Responses

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Greg StarkDate: 2010-02-28 14:12:32
Subject: Re: Avoiding bad prepared-statement plans.
Previous:From: Greg StarkDate: 2010-02-28 13:54:48
Subject: Re: Re: Hot Standby query cancellation and Streaming Replication integration

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2014 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group