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

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: (view raw, whole thread or download thread mbox)
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


pgsql-hackers by date

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

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2017 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group