| From: | "Mikheev, Vadim" <vmikheev(at)SECTORBASE(dot)COM> |
|---|---|
| To: | "'Bruce Momjian'" <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Benjamin Adida <ben(at)mit(dot)edu>, "Michael A(dot) Olson" <mao(at)sleepycat(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | RE: Proposal: replace no-overwrite with Berkeley DB |
| Date: | 2000-05-15 20:39:41 |
| Message-ID: | 8F4C99C66D04D4118F580090272A7A23018BDE@SECTORBASE1 |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
> Another option is to keep our heap table structure intact, and just
> Sleepycat DB for our indexes. That may be a big win, with little
> downside. Certainly something to think about. It may work
> better with MVCC, and allow fast sequential scans and fast heap
> access from the indexs, without having to go through the db structures
> to get to it.
But... we will still have to implement new smgr for tables and
redo/undo functions for heap access method.
Vadim
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Patrick Welche | 2000-05-15 22:29:57 | reading row in backend |
| Previous Message | Mikheev, Vadim | 2000-05-15 20:36:57 | RE: WAL versus Postgres (or: what goes around, comes ar ound) |