Re: A thought on Index Organized Tables

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Gokulakannan Somasundaram <gokul007(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: 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 04:47:39
Message-ID: 16249.1267159659@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Gokulakannan Somasundaram <gokul007(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
>> Actually, if you need to squeeze a few more bits into that word, the
>> thing to do would be to get rid of storing the tuple length there.
>> This would involve adding the same type of indirection header that
>> we use for HeapTuples, so that the length would be available at need
>> without going back to the item pointer. I

> I feel the other one is easy. To store the hint bits inside the ItemId, in
> the place of size.

No, we're not going there. That breaks the fundamental page content
manipulation algorithms, and falls down for tuples not yet stored in a
page (or being examined without a pointer to the page readily at hand),
and has no redeeming social value anyway compared to doing it in the
proven fashion.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2010-02-26 04:59:29 Re: A thought on Index Organized Tables
Previous Message Alex Hunsaker 2010-02-26 04:46:20 Re: Avoiding bad prepared-statement plans.