Re: A thought on Index Organized Tables

From: Greg Stark <gsstark(at)mit(dot)edu>
To: Gokulakannan Somasundaram <gokul007(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(dot)linnakangas(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers list <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: A thought on Index Organized Tables
Date: 2010-02-22 10:29:54
Message-ID: 407d949e1002220229w1e781755jd1754dbf94201ba7@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Mon, Feb 22, 2010 at 8:18 AM, Gokulakannan Somasundaram
<gokul007(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> a) IOT has both table and index in one structure. So no duplication of data
> b) With visibility maps, we have three structures a) Table b) Index c)
> Visibility map. So the disk footprint of the same data will be higher in
> postgres ( 2x + size of the visibility map).

These sound like the same point to me. I don't think we're concerned
with footprint -- only with how much of that footprint actually needs
to be scanned. So if we have a solution allowing the scan to only need
to look at the index then the extra footprint of the table doesn't
cost anything at run-time. And the visibility map is very small.

I think you would be better off looking for incremental improvements
rather than major architectural changes like having no heap for a
table. There are so many design decisions hinged on having a heap that
it would be impractical to rethink them all.

--
greg

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Gokulakannan Somasundaram 2010-02-22 11:01:49 Re: A thought on Index Organized Tables
Previous Message Greg Stark 2010-02-22 10:15:18 Re: pgsql: Speed up CREATE DATABASE by deferring the fsyncs until after