From: | Gokulakannan Somasundaram <gokul007(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Karl Schnaitter <karlsch(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | pgsql-hackers list <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: A thought on Index Organized Tables |
Date: | 2010-02-26 12:57:39 |
Message-ID: | 9362e74e1002260457m1f73254dradcf6054b57d7e1e@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
>
> It definitely affects current indexes. We can't completely avoid bad user
> functions. That is why it is important to put limits on how much damage they
> can do. That's the motivation for the idea I mentioned before, of
> double-checking visibility data in an IndexTuple before letting it survive a
> VACUUM.
>
No i don't say it would affect Vacuum, but i am suspecting that it would
affect Index based select. Since Vacuum uses a sequential scan of tuples, it
doesn't require the ordering operator, but any index based search would
require a ordering operator for binary search and for comparing with the
right most key.
Thanks,
Gokul.
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Greg Stark | 2010-02-26 13:00:08 | Re: pg_stop_backup does not complete |
Previous Message | Greg Stark | 2010-02-26 12:54:07 | Re: A thought on Index Organized Tables |