Re: Extension of Thick Indexes

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.

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  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?