Re: Porting MSSQL to PGSQL (Was: [OT] MySQL is bad, but

From: Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: "Jim C(dot) Nasby" <jnasby(at)pervasive(dot)com>, Martijn van Oosterhout <kleptog(at)svana(dot)org>, Mischa Sandberg <mischa(at)ca(dot)sophos(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Porting MSSQL to PGSQL (Was: [OT] MySQL is bad, but
Date: 2006-05-22 23:42:11
Message-ID: 44724C53.2090907@dunslane.net
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-advocacy pgsql-hackers

Tom Lane wrote:

>"Jim C. Nasby" <jnasby(at)pervasive(dot)com> writes:
>
>
>>If there was more information than the tuplestore could keep in memory,
>>then a TIDstore might be faster, but only if it resulted in reading from
>>the heap sequentially, or very near it.
>>
>>
>
>That's easily arranged, use a bitmap indexing data structure.
>
>I think we could probably even live with the structure becoming lossy
>under memory pressure: AFAICS, all rows modified by a single query ought
>to have the same XMIN/CMIN (or XMAX/CMAX for deleted rows), so it should
>be possible to verify whether a particular row is one of the interesting
>ones or not.
>
>I think the hard part of this task is designing the API for access to
>the rowsets from triggers.
>
>
>
>

How expensive is this going to be, especially for huge numbers of rows?
Would it be done for all queries, or just those with a per statement
trigger, or only when explicitly requested?

cheers

andrew

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-advocacy by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2006-05-22 23:47:46 Re: Porting MSSQL to PGSQL (Was: [OT] MySQL is bad, but THIS bad?)
Previous Message Tom Lane 2006-05-22 23:12:02 Re: Porting MSSQL to PGSQL (Was: [OT] MySQL is bad, but THIS bad?)

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2006-05-22 23:47:46 Re: Porting MSSQL to PGSQL (Was: [OT] MySQL is bad, but THIS bad?)
Previous Message Tom Lane 2006-05-22 23:12:02 Re: Porting MSSQL to PGSQL (Was: [OT] MySQL is bad, but THIS bad?)