thread-index: AccCUkxxcan44j2vSy6doD8sJ0gs2A==
Message-ID: <45505719.1070602@enterprisedb.com>
Content-class: urn:content-classes:message
Importance: normal
Date: Tue, 07 Nov 2006 09:51:21 +0000
From: "Heikki Linnakangas" <heikki@enterprisedb.com>
User-Agent: Thunderbird 1.5.0.7 (X11/20060927)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: "Luke Lonergan" <LLonergan@greenplum.com>
Cc: "Simon Riggs" <simon@2ndquadrant.com>,
	<pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>
Subject: Block B-tree etc. (was Re: Introducing an advanced Frequent Update)
References: <3E37B936B592014B978C4415F90D662D04E6EB21@MI8NYCMAIL06.Mi8.com>
In-Reply-To: <3E37B936B592014B978C4415F90D662D04E6EB21@MI8NYCMAIL06.Mi8.com>
Content-Type: text/plain;
	format=flowed;
	charset="ISO-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Luke Lonergan wrote:
> Simon,
> 
> Bring it on!  We at GP have been evaluating various approaches to index
> organized tables which unify index with heap storage to solve some of
> the problems you mention.  Split index and heap is a big issue in
> Postgres and we'd all welcome a good solution to it, even for limited
> circumstances like single index organization or the like.

I don't think Simon's proposal is meant to address that issue, but did 
you follow the thread I started in September about Block B-Tree index:
http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2006-09/msg02041.php

That's our plan to achieve speedups that other DBMS's have achieved with 
Index-Organized-Tables or Clustered Indexes. We're running initial 
performance tests of it as we speak, and if all goes well we're hoping 
to get that into PostgreSQL 8.3.

-- 
   Heikki Linnakangas
   EnterpriseDB   http://www.enterprisedb.com