RE: [WIP]Vertical Clustered Index (columnar store extension) - take2

Hi Yura san,

> I just don't get, why it should be "in-memory"? All the same things you
> describe further, but storing in paged index on-disk with caching
> through shared_buffers - why this way it wouldn't work?

We make the columnar store resident in memory for maximum search performance.
But I'm not very particular about this. Comments are welcome.

Best regards,
Aya Iwata
FUJITSU LIMITED

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Yura Sokolov <y(dot)sokolov(at)postgrespro(dot)ru>
> Sent: Wednesday, January 15, 2025 11:44 PM
> To: pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org
> Subject: Re: [WIP]Vertical Clustered Index (columnar store extension) - take2
>
> 07.10.2024 17:53, Aya Iwata (Fujitsu) wrote:
> > Hi All,
> >
> > Suggestions
> >
> > ==========
> >
> > When analyzing real-time data collected by PostgreSQL,
> >
> > it can be difficult to tune the current PostgreSQL server for
> > satisfactory performance.
> >
> > Therefore, we propose Vertical Clustered Indexing (VCI), an in-memory
> > column store function that holds data in a state suitable for business
> > analysis and is also expected to improve analysis performance.
>
> I just don't get, why it should be "in-memory"? All the same things you
> describe further, but storing in paged index on-disk with caching
> through shared_buffers - why this way it wouldn't work?
>
>