RE: Berkeley DB...

From: "Mikheev, Vadim" <vmikheev(at)SECTORBASE(dot)COM>
To: "'Bruce Momjian'" <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: "'Michael A(dot) Olson'" <mao(at)sleepycat(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: RE: Berkeley DB...
Date: 2000-05-22 03:00:01
Message-ID: 8F4C99C66D04D4118F580090272A7A23018BF7@SECTORBASE1
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

> > And, while we are on heap subject - using index (RECNO) for heap
> > means that all our secondary-index scans will performe TWO
> > index scans - first, to find recno in secondary-index, and
> > second, to find heap tuple using recno (now indices give us
> > TID, which is physical address).
>
> Yes, that was one of my questions. Why use recno at all? We already
> have heap access which is very fast. Why switch to SDB which gives us
> a recno ordering of heap that doesn't do us any real good, except to
> allow tuple update without changing indexes.

But if we'll use our heap AM, then we'll have to implement redo/undo
for it... no sence to switch to SDB for btree/hash WAL support -:)

Vadim

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Mikheev, Vadim 2000-05-22 03:09:54 RE: Berkeley DB...
Previous Message Lamar Owen 2000-05-22 02:26:54 Re: PostgreSQL 7.0-2 RPMset released.