| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Daniel Kalchev <daniel(at)digsys(dot)bg> |
| Cc: | mlw <pgsql(at)mohawksoft(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Indexes |
| Date: | 2003-01-16 19:13:21 |
| Message-ID: | 26472.1042744401@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
> mlw said:
>>> Does anyone think it would be a good idea, or is it even practical, to
>>> have a 'indx' subdirectory along side of the 'base' directory?
>>>
>>> I was thinking that, if it were an easy modification, that it could be
>>> an easy way to separate data and indexes to different hard disks.
This and other quick hacks have been discussed before. I think the
consensus has been to do nothing until someone gets around to writing
a general-purpose tablespace implementation.
FWIW, I don't think it would be an easy modification. The low-level
file access code doesn't even know whether a given relation is an index
or not (... and I don't think it should know). By the time you get done
implementing something reasonable at that level, you've got the
infrastructure you need for tablespaces.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Chandralaksana Natalia | 2003-01-16 19:57:57 | postgresql code |
| Previous Message | Petru Paler | 2003-01-16 19:07:40 | Re: Oracle rant |