| From: | Konstantin Knizhnik <k(dot)knizhnik(at)postgrespro(dot)ru> |
|---|---|
| To: | Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net>, Tomas Vondra <tomas(dot)vondra(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
| Cc: | PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: LSM tree for Postgres |
| Date: | 2020-08-04 17:21:18 |
| Message-ID: | aec15e35-0678-f5b6-5e79-61c0154b83ec@postgrespro.ru |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 04.08.2020 18:18, Stephen Frost wrote:
>
> Independently while considering this, I don't think the issues around
> how to deal with unique btrees properly has really been considered- you
> certainly can't stop your search on the first tuple you find even if the
> index is unique, since the "unique" btree could certainly have multiple
> entries for a given key and you might need to find a different one.
But search locates not ANY record with specified key in top index but record
which satisfies snapshot of the transaction. Why do we need more records
if we know that
there are no duplicates?
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Andrey M. Borodin | 2020-08-04 17:28:22 | Re: Yet another fast GiST build (typo) |
| Previous Message | Konstantin Knizhnik | 2020-08-04 17:18:01 | Re: LSM tree for Postgres |