| From: | Claudio Freire <klaussfreire(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Indirect indexes |
| Date: | 2016-10-19 16:55:39 |
| Message-ID: | CAGTBQpYWd7zFJGYGYB08=jCM6ei+om0KpxXFzViE-q=M6=HPrA@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Wed, Oct 19, 2016 at 10:21 AM, Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> wrote:
>> Simon objected that putting the PK
>> into the index tuple would disable HOT, but I don't think that's a
>> valid objection.
>
> Just to be clear, that's not what I objected to. Claudio appeared to
> be suggesting that an indirect index is the same thing as an index
> with PK tacked onto the end, which I re-confirm is not the case since
> doing that would not provide the primary objective of indirect
> indexes.
No, I was suggesting using the storage format of those indexes.
Perhaps I wasn't clear.
CREATE INDEX could be implemented entirely as the rewrite I mention, I
believe. But everything else can't, as you say.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Andreas Joseph Krogh | 2016-10-19 16:57:28 | Re: Move pg_largeobject to a different tablespace *without* turning on system_table_mods. |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2016-10-19 16:51:35 | Re: [COMMITTERS] packing/alignment annotation for ItemPointerData redux |