| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Gokulakannan Somasundaram <gokul007(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Greg Stark <gsstark(at)mit(dot)edu>, Karl Schnaitter <karlsch(at)gmail(dot)com>, Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, heikki(dot)linnakangas(at)enterprisedb(dot)com, pgsql-hackers list <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: A thought on Index Organized Tables |
| Date: | 2010-02-25 21:02:24 |
| Message-ID: | 14685.1267131744@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Gokulakannan Somasundaram <gokul007(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> I think, somewhere things have been misunderstood. we only need 8
> bytes more per index entry. I thought Postgres has a 8 byte transaction id,
> but it is only 4 bytes, so we only need to save the insertion and deletion
> xids. So 8 bytes more per tuple.
What makes you think you can get away without cmin/cmax?
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Greg Stark | 2010-02-25 21:08:26 | Re: A thought on Index Organized Tables |
| Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2010-02-25 20:59:47 | Re: A thought: should we run pgindent now? |