Re: Block B-Tree concept
| От | Tom Lane |
|---|---|
| Тема | Re: Block B-Tree concept |
| Дата | |
| Msg-id | 15221.1159539811@sss.pgh.pa.us обсуждение |
| Ответ на | Re: Block B-Tree concept (Heikki Linnakangas <heikki@enterprisedb.com>) |
| Ответы |
Re: Block B-Tree concept
|
| Список | pgsql-hackers |
Heikki Linnakangas <heikki@enterprisedb.com> writes:
> Imagine a normal B-tree just like what we have now. But when there is
> more than one tuple on the same heap page with consecutive index keys,
> we represent all of them in a single index tuple that contains the key
> of the first one of them, and a (run-length encoded) bitmap of the
> OffsetNumbers.
At first I thought that was a typo, and instead of "consecutive" you
meant to write "equal". I gather from the later statement
> I'm not very interested in the case where you have a lot of equal keys,
> I think the bitmap index am is more suitable for that.
that indeed you meant to write "consecutive", and I've got a problem
with that: define "consecutive". In a datatype independent fashion,
please. I also wonder how you are going to implement splitting and
merging of runs, which will certainly be necessary if this isn't to be
a constantly-requires-REINDEX thing.
regards, tom lane
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: