On Thu, 2007-11-08 at 21:50 -0300, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> Simon Riggs wrote:
>
> > Presumably we would not store an FSM for small tables? On the basis that
> > the purpose of the FSM is to save on pointless I/O there must be a size
> > of table below which an FSM is just overhead.
>
> Hmm, do you mean that we would open and verify every page of a small
> relation until we find one with free space? That doesn't sound very
> good.
I was trying to guess at Heikki's reason for saying the FSM should be in
a separate file. If we have one extra file per table that seems like a
huge number of additional files, with space and fsync implications.
Let's wait and see what Heikki's answer is.
-- Simon Riggs 2ndQuadrant http://www.2ndQuadrant.com
