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'" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: RE: Berkeley DB...
Date: 2000-05-22 03:09:54
Message-ID: 8F4C99C66D04D4118F580090272A7A23018BF8@SECTORBASE1
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

> > 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 -:)

Also, I think that our native index logging will require less space
in log, because of we can do not write *key values* to log!
Index tuple insertion will be logged as "index tuple pointing to
heap TID was added to page BLKNO at position ITEMID".
The same for index page split...

Vadim

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Bruce Momjian 2000-05-22 03:11:00 Re: Berkeley DB...
Previous Message Mikheev, Vadim 2000-05-22 03:00:01 RE: Berkeley DB...