> > I am suggesting the longoid is not the oid of the primary or long*
> > table, but a unque id we assigned just to number all parts of the long*
> > tuple. I thought that's what your oid was for.
> >
>
> Unfortunately I couldn't follow this issue correctly.
> Is the format of long value relation different from Jan's original now ?
>
> - At CREATE TABLE, a long value relation named
> "_LONG<tablename>" is created for those tables who need it.
> And of course dropped and truncated appropriate. The schema
> of this table is
>
> rowid Oid, -- oid of our main data row
I am suggesting a unique oid just to store this long value. The new oid
gets stored in the primary table, and on every row of the long* table.
> rowattno int2, -- the attribute number in main data
Not needed anymore.
> chunk_seq int4, -- the part number of this data chunk
> chunk text -- the content of this data chunk
Yes.
>
> I thought that there's an unique index (rowid,rowattno,chunk_seq).
Index on longoid only. No need index on longoid and chunk_seq because
you don't need the rows returned in order.
> Seems we could even update partially(specified chunk_seq only)
> without problem.
That could be done, but seems too rare because the new data would have
to be the same length. Doesn't seem worth�it, though others may
disagree.
-- Bruce Momjian | http://www.op.net/~candle maillist@candle.pha.pa.us | (610)
853-3000+ If your life is a hard drive, | 830 Blythe Avenue + Christ can be your backup. | Drexel Hill,
Pennsylvania19026