Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: A thought on Index Organized Tables

From: Gokulakannan Somasundaram <gokul007(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: 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: 2010-02-26 06:09:10
Message-ID: (view raw, whole thread or download thread mbox)
Lists: pgsql-hackers
> No, we're not going there.  That breaks the fundamental page content
> manipulation algorithms, and falls down for tuples not yet stored in a
> page (or being examined without a pointer to the page readily at hand),
> and has no redeeming social value anyway compared to doing it in the
> proven fashion.
        I was also concerned regarding that, but just thought of informing
you about the option. But i think it will never fall down for tuples not
stored in the page. As we have the offset and the hint bits to mention
whether a tuple is there or not. Only the two byte size field will move down
by my suggestion. But your intuition has the most probability of success.
        My concern was that it would make the page of a heap different from
page of a b-tree index.


In response to

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Gokulakannan SomasundaramDate: 2010-02-26 06:19:12
Subject: Re: A thought on Index Organized Tables
Previous:From: Tom LaneDate: 2010-02-26 06:03:48
Subject: Re: code cleanup: ss_currentScanDesc

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2017 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group