| From: | Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(dot)linnakangas(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Kevin Grittner <Kevin(dot)Grittner(at)wicourts(dot)gov> |
| Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Gokulakannan Somasundaram <gokul007(at)gmail(dot)com>, 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: | 2010-02-24 17:18:54 |
| Message-ID: | 4B855F7E.9030005@enterprisedb.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Kevin Grittner wrote:
> With the "simplifying" technique of keeping the leaf level in a
> separate file, it becomes hard to distinguish from Heikki's Grouped
> Index Tuples approach when you include the "maintain cluster order"
> patch. That really looks like where anyone should work from for any
> IOT effort. It appears to have been largely completed years ago.
>
> For those who missed or forgot it, this is the latest I could find:
>
> http://community.enterprisedb.com/git/
>
> Heikki, any thoughts on what it would take, beside cleaning up bit
> rot?
There was discussion on the indexam API changes required, I don't recall
the details right now.
--
Heikki Linnakangas
EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Greg Stark | 2010-02-24 17:23:55 | Re: A thought on Index Organized Tables |
| Previous Message | Rémi Zara | 2010-02-24 17:14:45 | Re: NaN/Inf fix for ECPG |