From: | "Trevor Talbot" <quension(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | "Gokulakannan Somasundaram" <gokul007(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Including Snapshot Info with Indexes |
Date: | 2007-10-14 14:02:40 |
Message-ID: | 90bce5730710140702q62bc9dc3r891f26e379059e12@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers pgsql-patches |
On 10/14/07, Gokulakannan Somasundaram <gokul007(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> http://www.databasecolumn.com/2007/09/one-size-fits-all.html
> > > The Vertica database(Monet is a open source version with the same
> > > principle) makes use of the very same principle. Use more disk space,
> > > since they are less costly and optimize the data warehousing.
> What i meant there was, it has duplicated storage of certain columns of the
> table. A table with more than one projection always needs more space, than a
> table with just one projection. By doing this they are reducing the number
> of disk operations. If they are duplicating columns of data to avoid reading
> un-necessary information, we are duplicating the snapshot information to
> avoid going to the table.
Was this about Vertica or MonetDB? I saw that article a while ago,
and I didn't see anything that suggested Vertica duplicated data, just
that it organized it differently on disk. What are you seeing as
being duplicated?
(This is orthogonal to the current thread; I'm just curious.)
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | sayali k | 2007-10-14 15:33:33 | Difference between materialized view and table |
Previous Message | Gregory Stark | 2007-10-14 13:35:35 | Re: Including Snapshot Info with Indexes |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Gregory Stark | 2007-10-14 14:48:36 | Assertion failure with small block sizes |
Previous Message | Gregory Stark | 2007-10-14 13:35:35 | Re: Including Snapshot Info with Indexes |