From: | Ron Mayer <rm_pg(at)cheapcomplexdevices(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> |
Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgreSQL(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Index AM change proposals, redux |
Date: | 2008-04-12 00:08:21 |
Message-ID: | 47FFFD75.6020402@cheapcomplexdevices.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
>> * GIT (Grouped Index Tuple) indexes, which achieve index space savings
>> in btrees by having a single index tuple represent multiple heap tuples
>> [...]
>> Another issue is that we'd need to check how much of the use-case for
>> GIT has been taken over by HOT.
>
> There is, however, a ton of overlap with index-only scans, and the
> possibility to return keys from indexes, as you pointed out.
One use case that I think GIT would help a lot with are my
large address tables that are clustered by zip-code but
often queried by State, City, County, School District,
Police Beat, etc.
I imagine a GIT index on "state" would just occupy
a couple pages at most regardless of how large the
table gets. And likewise, even an index on City
would be orders of magnitude smaller than the existing
ones; since all records for any given city are all
on the same few disk pages.
Or am I misunderstanding how GIT works.
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Brendan Jurd | 2008-04-12 02:41:06 | Re: Commit fest queue |
Previous Message | Gregory Stark | 2008-04-11 23:35:15 | Re: Cached Query Plans |