Re: index as large as table

From: Steinar H. Gunderson
Subject: Re: index as large as table
Date: ,
Msg-id: 20050820151025.GA12890@uio.no
(view: Whole thread, Raw)
In response to: Re: index as large as table  (Gavin Sherry)
List: pgsql-performance

On Sat, Aug 20, 2005 at 11:08:13PM +1000, Gavin Sherry wrote:
> Of course. The idea is that, generally speaking, you're only interested in
> a small portion of the data stored in the table. Indexes store extra data
> so that they can locate the portion you're interested in faster.

I think his question was more why you needed the data in itself, when you had
everything you needed in the index anyway. (Actually, you don't -- indexes
don't carry MVCC information, but I guess that's a bit beside the point.)

There has been discussion on "heap tables" or whatever you'd want to call
them (ie. tables that are organized as a B+-tree on some index) here before;
I guess the archives would be a reasonable place to start looking.

/* Steinar */
--
Homepage: http://www.sesse.net/


pgsql-performance by date:

From: Ron
Date:
Subject: Re: extremly low memory usage
From: Ron
Date:
Subject: Re: extremly low memory usage