From: | Gokulakannan Somasundaram <gokul007(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | pgsql-hackers list <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: A thought on Index Organized Tables |
Date: | 2010-02-26 18:30:51 |
Message-ID: | 9362e74e1002261030r403a57aew7bfe0391d7f0ba21@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Missed the group..
On Sat, Feb 27, 2010 at 12:00 AM, Gokulakannan Somasundaram <
gokul007(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>
> I definitely think thick indexes were too ambitious of a target for a
>> first time patch. Sequential index scans is very ambitious itself
>> despite being significantly simpler (if you have a solution which
>> works -- we haven't had one thus far).
>>
>
> The point, i am trying to bring out is that i want to work with one of the
> senior persons of the community to do my first few patches.
>
>
>>
>> Can you point me to the thread on "trailing nulls"? I think trimming
>> off any null columns from the ends of tuples when forming them should
>> be a cheap and easy optimization which just nobody's gotten around to
>> doing. If that's what you mean then I'm surprised you had any trouble
>> getting buy-in for it.
>>
>> http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2008-03/msg00682.php
> I think, the buy-in became difficult because of the code quality.
>
>
> Thanks,
> Gokul.
>
>
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Bruce Momjian | 2010-02-26 18:47:09 | Re: Hot Standby query cancellation and Streaming Replication integration |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2010-02-26 18:17:02 | Re: ProcSignalSlot vs. PGPROC |