| From: | Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> |
|---|---|
| To: | "Florian G(dot) Pflug" <fgp(at)phlo(dot)org> |
| Cc: | Stephan Szabo <sszabo(at)megazone(dot)bigpanda(dot)com>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com>, Martijn van Oosterhout <kleptog(at)svana(dot)org>, Phil Currier <pcurrier(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Column storage positions |
| Date: | 2007-02-21 22:37:05 |
| Message-ID: | 45DCC991.10501@dunslane.net |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Florian G. Pflug wrote:
>
> BTW, this is a good case for why the storage order should - directly or
> indirectly - be tweakable. You can either optimize for space, and _then_
> for speed - which is what the OP did I think - or first for speed, and
> then for space. If the dba cannot choose the strategy, there will
> always be workloads where the engine does it the wrong way around.
>
>
Maybe a simple setting on ordering strategy would be OK. The chance of
mucking it up if you can directly set the physical order seems just too
great to me.
cheers
andrew
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Gregory Stark | 2007-02-21 22:38:02 | Re: Column storage positions |
| Previous Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2007-02-21 22:29:48 | Re: [previously on HACKERS] "Compacting" a relation |