| From: | Gokulakannan Somasundaram <gokul007(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Kevin Grittner <Kevin(dot)Grittner(at)wicourts(dot)gov>, Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, heikki(dot)linnakangas(at)enterprisedb(dot)com, Karl Schnaitter <karlsch(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers list <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: A thought on Index Organized Tables |
| Date: | 2010-02-24 18:34:16 |
| Message-ID: | 9362e74e1002241034x7bbfcd4eh45f6beb521a99af4@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Wed, Feb 24, 2010 at 10:09 PM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> "Kevin Grittner" <Kevin(dot)Grittner(at)wicourts(dot)gov> writes:
> > So you are essentially proposing that rather than moving the heap
> > data into the leaf tuples of the index in the index file, you will
> > move the leaf index data into the heap tuples? The pages in such a
> > IOT heap file would still need to look a lot like index pages, yes?
>
> > I'm not saying it's a bad idea, but I'm curious what benefits you
> > see to taking that approach.
>
> Isn't that just a variant on Heikki's "grouped index tuples" idea?
>
> regards, tom lane
>
No Tom, Grouped index tuple doesn't use the B+ Tree data structure to
achieve the sorting, so it will not guarantee 100% clustering of data.
Gokul.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Heikki Linnakangas | 2010-02-24 18:40:25 | Re: pg_stop_backup does not complete |
| Previous Message | Josh Berkus | 2010-02-24 18:21:06 | Re: pg_stop_backup does not complete |