From: | Gokulakannan Somasundaram <gokul007(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com> |
Cc: | Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com>, Shrish Purohit <shrish_purohit(at)persistent(dot)co(dot)in>, Amit Gupta <amit(dot)pc(dot)gupta(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Extension of Thick Indexes |
Date: | 2009-03-20 06:46:42 |
Message-ID: | 9362e74e0903192346u4f2b8939t4735355595a6be9@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
> It would be helpful to explain how this solves the lack of atomicity of
> visibility data updates, which last time I checked was the killer
> problem for this feature.
>
Hmmm... To put it more clearly, this problem occurs when there is a thick
index on a mutable function(marked as immutable). In order to avoid the
problem, i wrote the code that would not support functional indexes, it
would only support the normal ones. I think the main argument against Thick
Index was
- Visibility Map, which supports "Index only Scans" partially but by
occupying lesser space and doesn't have the functional index issue. Since
the main advantage of Thick Index was Index Only Scans, the community
preferred to wait for Visibility map
Heikki is working on the Visibility map and i think his observations might
help on Thick Index project.
Thanks,
Gokul.
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | damien clochard | 2009-03-20 08:11:08 | Re: Have \d show child tables that inherit from the specified parent |
Previous Message | Dimitri Fontaine | 2009-03-19 21:40:31 | Re: hstore improvements? |