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: Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(dot)linnakangas(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers list <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Greg Stark <gsstark(at)mit(dot)edu>, Karl Schnaitter <karlsch(at)gmail(dot)com>
Subject: Re: A thought on Index Organized Tables
Date: 2010-03-01 06:35:39
Message-ID: 9362e74e1002282235r625b195fp8336beebc22aa424@mail.gmail.com (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers
> No, it is not the same thing.  Updating index snapshots requires being
> able to *re-find* a previously made index entry for the current row.
> And it has to be done 100% reliably.  The worst that happens if an index
> entry is not found when it should be during a uniqueness check is that
> the uniqueness constraint is not enforced properly; which is bad but it
> doesn't lead to internally-inconsistent data structures.
>

Hmmm... OK Fine... I am leaving this proposal once and for all.


>
> Pretending the problem doesn't exist doesn't make it go away ...
>
> Because this is how it is done in other databases
Ref: .http://www.akadia.com/services/ora_function_based_index_2.html

Thanks,
Gokul.

In response to

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Gokulakannan SomasundaramDate: 2010-03-01 06:41:09
Subject: Re: A thought on Index Organized Tables
Previous:From: David FetterDate: 2010-03-01 04:06:05
Subject: Re: psql with "Function Type" in \df

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