Re: [GENERAL] Joins and links

Hi Leon,

In the long wars between the object databases, Versant which has logical
record ids, and ObjectStore which has physical record ids, Versant has
consistently beaten ObjectStore in the sort of queries that financial
people are likely to do. (On graphic design type apps, ObjectStore tends
to win).

Versants object ids actually go through an index to get to the physical
location. Admittedly a VERY highly optimised index, but an index
nevertheless.

What this says to me is that Postgres's concept of oids are ok as is. If
your queries are too slow either the optimiser is not using an index
when it should, or else the indexing mechanism is not fast enough. I
suspect it would be nice, from an object database perspective if a
special case oid-index index type was written.

Physical record ids, have lots of problems. You can't re-organise space
dynamically so you have to take your database off-line for a while to
totally re-organise it. You lose space because it can't be re-used
dynamically. There are problems with backup.

I'm writing a web page on what would be needed to make Postgres into an
Object database.....
http://www.tech.com.au/postgres

Leon wrote:
>
> Hello all!
>
>  You probably remember me - recently I complained about speed
>  of joins in Postgres. After a short investigation the way was
>  found in which Postgres's optimizer can do the right job. It
>  was constructive discussion. Now I want to tell you what could
>  make Postgres better and faster. And what will make us (our
>  development group) happy. Maybe I am bothering someone, if
>  I do - tell me that.
>
>  Let me begin.
>
>  First of all, some accounting reports need to be delivered
>  very fast - within minutes or so. And what's bad is that
>  quite a few of these reports are quite time-consuming and search
>  intensive. In particular, internals of these reports include
>  a lot of joins on tables.
>
>  Secondly, almost all of accounting information naturally
>  fits into network data model, which can be implemented very
>  efficiently.
>
>  This stuff described here is not accounting-specific, it
>  can be found in every database which uses master-detail
>  tables and other such types of relations.
>
>  So. How is join being performed in such cases? Although I am
>  not an expert, I can imagine the way: first there is an (index)
>  scan on first table, and then an (index) scan on the second.
>  It is the best way, reality could be much worse as we have seen.
>
>  How can we radically improve performance in such cases? There
>  is a simple and quite obvious way. (For you not to think that
>  I am hallucinating I will tell you that there exist some
>  real servers that offer such features I am talking about)
>  We should make a real reference in one table to another! That
>  means there could be special data type called, say, "link",
>  which is a physical record number in the foreign table.
>
>  Queries could look like this:
>
>  table1:
>  a int4
>  b link (->table2)
>
>  table2:
>  c int4
>  recnum (system auxiliary field, really a record number in the table)
>
>  select * from table2 where table1.a > 5 and table1.b = table2.recnum
>
>  Such joins can fly really fast, as practice shows :)
>  Just consider: the thing table1.b = table2.recnum is a READY-MADE
>  join, so server doesn't have to build anything on top of that. It
>  can simply perform lookup through link, and since it is a physical
>  record number, this is done with the efficiency of C pointers! Thus
>  performance gain is ENORMOUS.
>
>  And it simplifies the optimizer, because it doesn't have to decide
>  anything about whether to use indices and such like. The join is
>  performed always the same way, and it is the best way.
>
>  This feature, being implemented, could bring Postgres ahead
>  of most commercial servers, so proving creative abilities of
>  free software community. Let us make a step in the future!
>
> Best regards,
>  Leon