From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
Cc: | Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com>, Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: On columnar storage |
Date: | 2015-06-12 17:59:31 |
Message-ID: | 26723.1434131971@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> writes:
> Amit Kapila wrote:
>> Will the column store obey snapshot model similar to current heap tuples,
>> if so will it derive the transaction information from heap tuple?
> Yes, visibility will be tied to the heap tuple -- a value is accessed
> only when its corresponding heap row has already been determined to be
> visible. One interesting point that raises from this is about vacuum:
> when are we able to remove a value from the store? I have some
> not-completely-formed ideas about this.
Hm. This seems not terribly ambitious --- mightn't a column store
extension wish to store tables *entirely* in the column store, rather
than tying them to a perhaps-vestigial heap table? Perhaps that's a
necessary restriction to get to something implementable, but considering
that the proposal mentions pluggable column stores I should think you'd
not want to tie it down that much.
I can't help thinking that this could tie in with the storage level API
that I was waving my arms about last year. Or maybe not --- the goals
are substantially different --- but I think we ought to reflect on that
rather than just doing a narrow hack for column stores used in the
particular way you're describing here.
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2015-06-12 18:06:19 | Re: Entities created in one query not available in another in extended protocol |
Previous Message | Simon Riggs | 2015-06-12 17:54:04 | Re: Entities created in one query not available in another in extended protocol |