| From: | "Kevin Grittner" <Kevin(dot)Grittner(at)wicourts(dot)gov> |
|---|---|
| To: | "Tom Lane" <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | "Simon Riggs" <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, <heikki(dot)linnakangas(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, "Gokulakannan Somasundaram" <gokul007(at)gmail(dot)com>, "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: | 2010-02-24 17:04:04 |
| Message-ID: | 4B8507A4020000250002F5E7@gw.wicourts.gov |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> Isn't that just a variant on Heikki's "grouped index tuples" idea?
With apologies to Heikki for having forgotten that effort, yes.
With the "simplifying" technique of keeping the leaf level in a
separate file, it becomes hard to distinguish from Heikki's Grouped
Index Tuples approach when you include the "maintain cluster order"
patch. That really looks like where anyone should work from for any
IOT effort. It appears to have been largely completed years ago.
For those who missed or forgot it, this is the latest I could find:
http://community.enterprisedb.com/git/
Heikki, any thoughts on what it would take, beside cleaning up bit
rot?
-Kevin
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Rémi Zara | 2010-02-24 17:05:15 | Re: NaN/Inf fix for ECPG |
| Previous Message | Rémi Zara | 2010-02-24 17:00:23 | Re: Pika buildfarm member failure on pgcrypto/test sha2 |