RE: Berkeley DB...
От | Mikheev, Vadim |
---|---|
Тема | RE: Berkeley DB... |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 8F4C99C66D04D4118F580090272A7A23018BF7@SECTORBASE1 обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Berkeley DB... ("Mikheev, Vadim" <vmikheev@SECTORBASE.COM>) |
Ответы |
Re: Berkeley DB...
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
> > And, while we are on heap subject - using index (RECNO) for heap > > means that all our secondary-index scans will performe TWO > > index scans - first, to find recno in secondary-index, and > > second, to find heap tuple using recno (now indices give us > > TID, which is physical address). > > Yes, that was one of my questions. Why use recno at all? We already > have heap access which is very fast. Why switch to SDB which gives us > a recno ordering of heap that doesn't do us any real good, except to > allow tuple update without changing indexes. But if we'll use our heap AM, then we'll have to implement redo/undo for it... no sence to switch to SDB for btree/hash WAL support -:) Vadim
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: