From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)dcc(dot)uchile(dot)cl> |
Cc: | Ron Mayer <rm_pg(at)cheapcomplexdevices(dot)com>, Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: possible TODO: read-only tables, select from indexes only. |
Date: | 2005-04-23 23:33:51 |
Message-ID: | 23818.1114299231@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)dcc(dot)uchile(dot)cl> writes:
> One idea that may be closer to reality might be implementing heaps that
> behave as indexes (or indexes that behave as heaps), or clustered
> indexes as some other database call them; the main idea being that at
> the leaf nodes of the index, the whole heap tuple resides instead of
> only a CTID.
The main problem with this is that you'd not have a stable TID for a
given tuple, since it might be forced to move by operations such as
index page splits. It might be impractical to support any secondary
indexes on such a table --- but I can definitely see that there are
applications that wouldn't care.
> One problem I see with that approach is the maximum tuple size ... our
> current btree index code can't handle tuples bigger than (BLCKSZ/3)
> IIRC, some 2 kB.
So you toast 'em ... I don't see this as a fatal drawback.
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Josh Berkus | 2005-04-23 23:39:11 | Re: Bad n_distinct estimation; hacks suggested? |
Previous Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2005-04-23 23:24:56 | Re: possible TODO: read-only tables, select from indexes only. |