Re: Indexed views?

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Greg Stark <gsstark(at)mit(dot)edu>
Cc: pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Indexed views?
Date: 2004-09-08 13:57:56
Message-ID: 19692.1094651876@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Greg Stark <gsstark(at)mit(dot)edu> writes:
> Hm. Just thinking aloud here. But what if there was an option to store the
> visibility information separately from the heap entirely. There would still
> only be one copy of the visibility information and it wouldn't increase
> storage or i/o requirements.

How do you figure that it wouldn't increase I/O? In most scenarios that
would be still another block to read in to find out whether a tuple is
valid. (And that's assuming that you don't need any fancy indexing
scheme to associate tuples with visibility records.)

> But if the table has particularly wide records, then it might be useful to
> avoid having to read in the many blocks of records.

I think the TOAST scheme already gets much of the low-hanging fruit
here. It might be interesting to expose more TOAST control knobs,
though --- for instance make the thresholds settable per-table.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Stephan Szabo 2004-09-08 15:03:01 Re: Making AFTER triggers act properly in PL functions
Previous Message David Fetter 2004-09-08 13:54:50 Re: FYI: Fujitsu