Re: A thought on Index Organized Tables

From: Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(dot)linnakangas(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>
To: Gokulakannan Somasundaram <gokul007(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: pgsql-hackers list <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: A thought on Index Organized Tables
Date: 2010-02-22 06:51:57
Message-ID: 4B82298D.6020002@enterprisedb.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Gokulakannan Somasundaram wrote:
> Hi,
> As you all know, Index Organized tables are a way by which we can
> automatically cluster the data based on the primary key. While i was
> thinking about an implementation for postgres, it looks like an impossible
> with the current ideologies. In an IOT, if a record gets updated, we need to
> mark the old row as deleted immediately, as we do with any other table. But
> since Postgres supports user defined data types and if they happen to be a
> broken data type, then we have an unstable IOT.(as there is no guarantee, we
> might hit the same record)
> This was the reason for which, the proposal on creating indexes with
> snapshot was rejected.
> May i get a little clarification on this issue? Will we be supporting
> the IOT feature in postgres in future?

What seems like the best path to achieve the kind of performance
benefits that IOTs offer is allowing index-only-scans using the
visibility map. I worked on that last summer, but unfortunately didn't
have the time to finish anything.

--
Heikki Linnakangas
EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Andres Freund 2010-02-22 07:59:36 Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Oops, don't forget to rewind the directory before scanning it to
Previous Message Fujii Masao 2010-02-22 04:47:03 Re: Streaming replication on win32, still broken