| 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>, Karl Schnaitter <karlsch(at)gmail(dot)com>, Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, heikki(dot)linnakangas(at)enterprisedb(dot)com, pgsql-hackers list <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: A thought on Index Organized Tables |
| Date: | 2010-02-25 20:09:53 |
| Message-ID: | 9362e74e1002251209t5ff07173uc348ec9d07c806e8@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
> 1) transaction information in index
>
> This seems like a lot of bloat in indexes. It also means breaking
> a lot of other optimizations such as being able to read the tuples
> directly from the heap page without locking. I'm not sure how much
> those are worth though. But adding 24 bytes to every index entry seems
> pretty unlikely to be a win anyways.
>
>
Greg,
I think, somewhere things have been misunderstood. we only need 8
bytes more per index entry. I thought Postgres has a 8 byte transaction id,
but it is only 4 bytes, so we only need to save the insertion and deletion
xids. So 8 bytes more per tuple.
Gokul.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Bruce Momjian | 2010-02-25 20:17:38 | Re: A thought: should we run pgindent now? |
| Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2010-02-25 19:40:14 | Re: A thought: should we run pgindent now? |