From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Gokulakannan Somasundaram <gokul007(at)gmail(dot)com> |
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 04:47:39 |
Message-ID: | 16249.1267159659@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:
>> Actually, if you need to squeeze a few more bits into that word, the
>> thing to do would be to get rid of storing the tuple length there.
>> This would involve adding the same type of indirection header that
>> we use for HeapTuples, so that the length would be available at need
>> without going back to the item pointer. I
> I feel the other one is easy. To store the hint bits inside the ItemId, in
> the place of size.
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.
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2010-02-26 04:59:29 | Re: A thought on Index Organized Tables |
Previous Message | Alex Hunsaker | 2010-02-26 04:46:20 | Re: Avoiding bad prepared-statement plans. |