| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
| Cc: | David Scott <davids(at)apptechsys(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: No heap lookups on index |
| Date: | 2006-01-19 00:43:12 |
| Message-ID: | 5630.1137631392@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-general pgsql-hackers |
Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> writes:
> Hopefully we could avoid trying to support GIST-heaps?
Well, that would be an extra index AM that someone might or might not
get around to writing someday. I was thinking that both btree and hash
index AMs might be interesting for this, though. Hash in particular
would adapt pretty trivially ...
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | David Fetter | 2006-01-19 00:48:53 | Re: PostgreSQL Top 10 Wishlist |
| Previous Message | Michael Crozier | 2006-01-19 00:38:40 | Re: RAID-50 |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Michael Glaesemann | 2006-01-19 00:54:34 | Re: Surrogate keys (Was: enums) |
| Previous Message | Leandro Guimarães Faria Corcete Dutra | 2006-01-19 00:31:09 | Re: FW: Surrogate keys (Was: enums) |