| From: | Gokulakannan Somasundaram <gokul007(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Greg Stark <gsstark(at)mit(dot)edu> |
| Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, 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 19:13:36 |
| Message-ID: | 9362e74e1002241113k185eadfasc5ae9e7164fe243e@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
> It might be slightly easier given the assumption that you only want to
> scan leaf tuples.
>
> But there's an additional problem I didn't think of before. Currently
> we optimize index scans by copying all relevant tuples to local memory
> so we don't need to hold an index lock for an extended time or spend a
> lot of time relocking and rechecking the index for changes. That
> wouldn't be possible if we needed to get visibility info from the page
> since we would need up-to-date information.
>
>
> We should solve this issue in the same way, of how we proceed with the
index only quals, in current index-only scans.
Gokul.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Simon Riggs | 2010-02-24 19:24:57 | Re: pg_stop_backup does not complete |
| Previous Message | Heikki Linnakangas | 2010-02-24 19:13:22 | Re: A thought on Index Organized Tables |