Re: CLUSTER and indisclustered

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Hannu Krosing <hannu(at)tm(dot)ee>
Cc: Curt Sampson <cjs(at)cynic(dot)net>, mark Kirkwood <markir(at)slithery(dot)org>, Gavin Sherry <swm(at)linuxworld(dot)com(dot)au>, Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: CLUSTER and indisclustered
Date: 2002-08-07 13:26:42
Message-ID: 15010.1028726802@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Hannu Krosing <hannu(at)tm(dot)ee> writes:
> Now I remembered my original preference for page bitmaps (vs. tuple
> bitmaps): one can't actually make good use of a bitmap of tuples because
> there is no fixed tuples/page ratio and thus no way to quickly go from
> bit position to actual tuple. You mention the same problem but propose a
> different solution.

> Using page bitmap, we will at least avoid fetching any unneeded pages -
> essentially we will have a sequential scan over possibly interesting
> pages.

Right. One form of the "lossy compression" idea I suggested is to
switch from a per-tuple bitmap to a per-page bitmap once the bitmap gets
too large to work with. Again, one could imagine doing that only in
denser areas of the bitmap.

> But I guess that CLUSTER support for INSERT will not be touched for 7.3
> as will real bitmap indexes ;)

All of this is far-future work I think. Adding a new scan type to the
executor would probably be pretty localized, but the ramifications in
the planner could be extensive --- especially if you want to do plans
involving ANDed or ORed bitmaps.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Hannu Krosing 2002-08-07 13:29:26 Re: CLUSTER and indisclustered
Previous Message Don Baccus 2002-08-07 13:06:18 Re: Why is MySQL more chosen over PostgreSQL?