| From: | Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(dot)linnakangas(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Gokulakannan Somasundaram <gokul007(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers list <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: A thought on Index Organized Tables |
| Date: | 2010-02-23 14:49:44 |
| Message-ID: | 1266936584.3752.3954.camel@ebony |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Mon, 2010-02-22 at 08:51 +0200, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
> Gokulakannan Somasundaram wrote:
> > May i get a little clarification on this issue? Will we be supporting
> > the IOT feature in postgres in future?
>
> What seems like the best path to achieve the kind of performance
> benefits that IOTs offer is allowing index-only-scans using the
> visibility map.
I don't agree with that. Could you explain why you think that would be
the case? It would be a shame to have everybody think you can solve a
problem if it turned out not to be the case.
--
Simon Riggs www.2ndQuadrant.com
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Simon Riggs | 2010-02-23 14:53:54 | Re: tie user processes to postmaster was:(Re: [HACKERS] scheduler in core) |
| Previous Message | Greg Stark | 2010-02-23 14:46:40 | Assertion failure in walreceiver |