| From: | Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(dot)linnakangas(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Gokulakannan Somasundaram <gokul007(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers list <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: A thought on Index Organized Tables |
| Date: | 2010-02-24 10:05:27 |
| Message-ID: | 4B84F9E7.1030504@enterprisedb.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Gokulakannan Somasundaram wrote:
> While we accept that visibility map is good for read only application, why
> can't we make it optional? Atleast if there is a way for a person to drop
> the visibility map for a table(if it gets created by default), the
> application need not incur the overhead for those tables, when it knows it
> is update intensive / with batch jobs.
If you have a scenario where the visibility map incurs a measurable
overhead, let's hear it. I didn't see any in the tests I performed, but
it's certainly possible that if the circumstances are just right it
makes a difference.
> Again not to deviate from my initial question, can we make a decision
> regarding unstable/mutable functions / broken data types ?
*Sigh*. Yes. You need to deal with them.
--
Heikki Linnakangas
EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Gokulakannan Somasundaram | 2010-02-24 12:09:16 | Re: A thought on Index Organized Tables |
| Previous Message | Stefan Kaltenbrunner | 2010-02-24 10:03:18 | Re: pgsql: Remove pre-7.4 documentaiton mentions, now that 8.0 is the oldest |