Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: A thought on Index Organized Tables

From: Gokulakannan Somasundaram <gokul007(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: Greg Stark <gsstark(at)mit(dot)edu>, 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: 2010-02-26 18:54:17
Message-ID: 9362e74e1002261054s2f7a8c87t433a6141850b67a8@mail.gmail.com (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers
> IIRC, what was being talked about was shoehorning some hint bits into
> the line pointers by assuming that size and offset are multiples of 4.
> I'm not thrilled with having mutable status bits there for reliability
> reasons, but it could be done without breaking a lot of existing code.
> What I was reacting to above was a suggestion that we could delete the
> itempointer size field altogether, which seems unworkable for the
> reasons I mentioned.
>

I think then we can pursue on using the IndexTuple structure similar to
HeapTuple(as you have suggested in an earlier update). This would involve(i
believe)
a) Making the current IndexTuple  into IndexTupleHeader
b) Creating a new structure called IndexTuple which will store the size and
the have a pointer to IndexTupleHeader.

But Tom, can you please explain me why that broken ordering example doesn't
affect the current index scans.

Thanks,
Gokul.

In response to

Responses

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Tom LaneDate: 2010-02-26 18:59:22
Subject: Re: Avoiding bad prepared-statement plans.
Previous:From: Mark MielkeDate: 2010-02-26 18:53:38
Subject: Re: Avoiding bad prepared-statement plans.

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2014 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group