| From: | Jim Nasby <Jim(dot)Nasby(at)BlueTreble(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Alex Ignatov <a(dot)ignatov(at)postgrespro(dot)ru>, Vladimir Sitnikov <sitnikov(dot)vladimir(at)gmail(dot)com>, Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | "Joshua D(dot) Drake" <jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Why we lost Uber as a user |
| Date: | 2016-07-29 14:18:10 |
| Message-ID: | 552286e5-5721-1f40-db29-da0b8195cb43@BlueTreble.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 7/28/16 10:05 AM, Alex Ignatov wrote:
>> Just curious: what if PostgreSQL supported index that stores "primary
>> key" (or unique key) instead of tids?
>
> You mean IOT like Oracle have?
IIRC, IOT either stores the table in index order, which is something
different.
What Alex is proposing is an index method that stores a datum instead of
a ctid. You would then use that datum to probe a different index to get
the ctid. Or put simply, you have a PK index that contains ctid's, and a
bunch of other indexes that contain a PK value instead of ctid's.
I think it's an idea worth pursuing, but I don't see how you can make it
work with our MVCC system unless we drop the aversion to scanning back
into an index as part of an update.
--
Jim Nasby, Data Architect, Blue Treble Consulting, Austin TX
Experts in Analytics, Data Architecture and PostgreSQL
Data in Trouble? Get it in Treble! http://BlueTreble.com
855-TREBLE2 (855-873-2532) mobile: 512-569-9461
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Jim Nasby | 2016-07-29 14:28:49 | Re: "Strong sides of MySQL" talk from PgDay16Russia, translated |
| Previous Message | Amit Kapila | 2016-07-29 14:01:40 | Re: pg_basebackup wish list |