In article <28692(dot)993502132(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us (Tom Lane)
> "John Gray" <jgray(at)beansindustry(dot)co(dot)uk> writes:
>> Firstly, I appreciate this may be a hare-brained scheme, but I've been
>> thinking about indexes in which the tuple pointer is not unique.
> It sounds pretty hare-brained to me all right ;-). What's wrong with
> the normal approach of one index tuple per heap tuple, ie, multiple
> index tuples with the same key? It seems to me that your idea will just
> make index maintenance a lot more difficult. For example, what happens
> when one of the referenced rows is deleted? We'd have to actually
> change, not just remove, the index tuple, since it'd also be pointing at
> undeleted rows. That'll create a whole bunch of concurrency problems.
Sorry, I fear my explanation has not been very clear. I'm not suggesting
that one index entry will point to more than one heap tuple, but that more
than one index entry may point to the same heap tuple. In this respect it
is the same as a full-text index (or an 'inverted index' as described by
Hannu). i.e. the data format and algorithm of the btree index need not
If the tuple is changed, then a set of x index tuples which point to it will
become invalid, (and a new set of y index tuples will be created pointing
to then new version) but VACUUM will dispose of the outdated index tuples
In fact, maybe my question should be: Full-text indexing in contrib is
provided by an auxiliary table. Is there a reason why it couldn't be
performed using a functional btree index with (broadly) the same
word(key) document (heaptuplepointer)
>> Obviously I need to write a basic XML parser that can support such an
>> xpath function, but it would also be good to index by the results of
>> that function-i.e. to have an index containing feature type values. As
>> each document could have any number of these instances, the number of
>> index tuples would differ from the number of heap tuples.
> Why would you want multiple index entries for the same key (never mind
> whether they are in a single index tuple or multiple tuples) pointing to
> the same row?
Muddled thinking :). I was trying to decide what to do if two identical
items appeared in the same record: should there be two index entries
or just one?
I had thought that this might help queries where you want to count the
number of instances of a particular element -but on reflection, the index
entries aren't a useful way to achieve that.
> Actually, after thinking a little more, I suspect the idea you are
> really trying to describe here is index entries with finer-than-tuple
> granularity. This is not silly, but it is sufficiently outside the
> normal domain of SQL that I think you are fighting an uphill battle.
> You'd be *much* better off creating a table that has one row per
> indexable entity, whatever that is.
I accept that the offset (and its use) is not so straightforward. It would
have benefits for indexing documents, but as SQL isn't built around
document entities, it may be something best left.
In general, I was trying to formulate something where the functionality
didn't rely on extra tables (because I reckoned the choice of extra tables
would depend on the type of documents I was trying to index. HOWEVER,
I realise that this is not true: I can use a table with
path string document
/feature/type Moat 3
/feature/type Cowshed 3
etc. and use a two-column index on path and string instead)
>> I have tried the approach of decomposing documents into cdata, element
>> and attribute tables, and I can use joins to extract a list of feature
>> types etc. (and could use triggers to update this) but the idea of not
>> having to parse a document to enter it into the database
> How do you expect that to happen, when you will have to parse it to get
> the index terms?
My feeling was that I wanted the database side to be document-
structure agnostic. In other words, I could use the database as a plain
document store and I would develop the xpath function which could be
used with a sequential scan at first. Then I started to ask whether I could
create a functional index using it -the point being that the xpath
function is like a 'words' function which returns all the words from a
string -it returns more than one entry for a given row. An index based on
this would need to have more than one entry relating to a given heap
Thanks for your comments: given that actions speak louder than words
maybe I'll try and implement my fabled xpath operator first, then worry
about indexing or performance improvements :)
In response to
pgsql-hackers by date
|Next:||From: Jim Mercer||Date: 2001-06-26 12:56:28|
|Subject: Re: Encrypting pg_shadow passwords|
|Previous:||From: Hiroshi Inoue||Date: 2001-06-26 10:02:42|
|Subject: Re: stuck spin lock with many concurrent users|