| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(dot)linnakangas(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> |
| Cc: | PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Teodor Sigaev <teodor(at)sigaev(dot)ru>, Oleg Bartunov <oleg(at)sai(dot)msu(dot)su> |
| Subject: | Re: Understanding GIN posting trees |
| Date: | 2011-07-14 19:10:35 |
| Message-ID: | 7534.1310670635@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(dot)linnakangas(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> writes:
> Why is the posting tree a tree? AFAICS, we never search it using the
> TID, it's always scanned in whole. It would be simpler to store the TIDs
> in a posting list in no particular order. This could potentially make
> insertions cheaper, as you could just append to the last posting list
> page for the key, instead of traversing the posting tree to a particular
> location. You could also pack the tids denser, as you wouldn't need to
> reserve free space for additions in the middle.
Surely VACUUM would like to search it by TID for deletion purposes?
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Josh Berkus | 2011-07-14 19:17:01 | Re: per-column generic option |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2011-07-14 19:05:30 | Re: Extension ownership and pg_dump |