| From: | Kim Bisgaard <kib+pg(at)dmi(dot)dk> |
|---|---|
| To: | "Jim C(dot) Nasby" <jnasby(at)pervasive(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Luke Lonergan <LLonergan(at)greenplum(dot)com>, Dawid Kuroczko <qnex42(at)gmail(dot)com>, Postgres Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Table clustering idea |
| Date: | 2006-06-27 08:46:20 |
| Message-ID: | 44A0F05C.4070608@dmi.dk |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Jim C. Nasby wrote:
> On Sun, Jun 25, 2006 at 08:04:18PM -0400, Luke Lonergan wrote:
>
>> Other DBMS have index organized tables that can use either hash or btree
>> organizations, both of which have their uses. We are planning to
>> implement btree organized tables sometime - anyone else interested in
>> this idea?
>>
>
> I'm curious how you'll do it, as I was once told that actually trying to
> store heap data in a btree structure would be a non-starter (don't
> remember why).
>
Ingres is now open source - they have clustering on btree/isam/hash
(it's called "modify table xx to btree on col1,col2")
Regards,
Kim
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Hannu Krosing | 2006-06-27 08:48:06 | Re: vacuum, performance, and MVCC |
| Previous Message | PFC | 2006-06-27 08:42:54 | Re: vacuum, performance, and MVCC |