|From:||Martijn van Oosterhout <kleptog(at)svana(dot)org>|
|To:||Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>|
|Cc:||Gregory Stark <stark(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org|
|Subject:||Re: column ordering, was Re: [PATCHES] Enums patch v2|
|Views:||Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox|
On Tue, Dec 19, 2006 at 10:48:41AM -0500, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
> Sure, but the only sane way I can think of to do that would be have
> separate logical and physical orderings, with a map between the two. I
> guess we'd need to see what the potential space savings would be and
> establish what the processing overhead would be, before considering it.
> One side advantage would be that it would allow us to do the often
> requested "add column at position x".
A patch to allow seperate physical and logical orderings was submitted
and rejected. Unless something has changed on that front, any
discussion in this direction isn't really useful.
Once this is possible it would allow a lot of simple savings. For
example, shifting all fixed width fields to the front means they can
all be accessed without looping through the previous columns, for
Have a nice day,
Martijn van Oosterhout <kleptog(at)svana(dot)org> http://svana.org/kleptog/
> From each according to his ability. To each according to his ability to litigate.
|Next Message||Matthew O'Connor||2006-12-19 16:56:17||Autovacuum Improvements (was: Second attempt, roll your own autovacuum)|
|Previous Message||Alvaro Herrera||2006-12-19 16:22:47||Re: Second attempt, roll your own autovacuum|
|Next Message||Bruce Momjian||2006-12-19 17:00:05||Re: Load distributed checkpoint patch|
|Previous Message||Andrew Dunstan||2006-12-19 15:48:41||column ordering, was Re: [PATCHES] Enums patch v2|