| From: | Gokulakannan Somasundaram <gokul007(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(dot)linnakangas(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers list <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Greg Stark <gsstark(at)mit(dot)edu>, Karl Schnaitter <karlsch(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Subject: | Re: A thought on Index Organized Tables |
| Date: | 2010-03-01 06:35:39 |
| Message-ID: | 9362e74e1002282235r625b195fp8336beebc22aa424@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
> No, it is not the same thing. Updating index snapshots requires being
> able to *re-find* a previously made index entry for the current row.
> And it has to be done 100% reliably. The worst that happens if an index
> entry is not found when it should be during a uniqueness check is that
> the uniqueness constraint is not enforced properly; which is bad but it
> doesn't lead to internally-inconsistent data structures.
>
Hmmm... OK Fine... I am leaving this proposal once and for all.
>
> Pretending the problem doesn't exist doesn't make it go away ...
>
> Because this is how it is done in other databases
Ref: .http://www.akadia.com/services/ora_function_based_index_2.html
Thanks,
Gokul.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Gokulakannan Somasundaram | 2010-03-01 06:41:09 | Re: A thought on Index Organized Tables |
| Previous Message | David Fetter | 2010-03-01 04:06:05 | Re: psql with "Function Type" in \df |