From: | Greg Stark <gsstark(at)mit(dot)edu> |
---|---|
To: | Gokulakannan Somasundaram <gokul007(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, 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 15:33:11 |
Message-ID: | 407d949e1002260733p3bef222dm801ffa550cb7be06@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Fri, Feb 26, 2010 at 2:38 PM, Gokulakannan Somasundaram
<gokul007(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> I have never written much code in C, and even if write it, i am
> sure i will receive the comment that it is a unmaintainable code.(eg: Thick
> index code and trailing nulls code)
I definitely think thick indexes were too ambitious of a target for a
first time patch. Sequential index scans is very ambitious itself
despite being significantly simpler (if you have a solution which
works -- we haven't had one thus far).
Can you point me to the thread on "trailing nulls"? I think trimming
off any null columns from the ends of tuples when forming them should
be a cheap and easy optimization which just nobody's gotten around to
doing. If that's what you mean then I'm surprised you had any trouble
getting buy-in for it.
--
greg
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Erik Rijkers | 2010-02-26 15:36:17 | Assertion failure twophase.c (testing HS/SR) |
Previous Message | Alex Hunsaker | 2010-02-26 15:27:30 | Re: Avoiding bad prepared-statement plans. |