Re: A thought on Index Organized Tables

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

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  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.