Re: Why we lost Uber as a user - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Jim Nasby
Subject Re: Why we lost Uber as a user
Date
Msg-id 552286e5-5721-1f40-db29-da0b8195cb43@BlueTreble.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Why we lost Uber as a user  (Alex Ignatov <a.ignatov@postgrespro.ru>)
Responses Re: Why we lost Uber as a user  (Stephen Frost <sfrost@snowman.net>)
List pgsql-hackers
On 7/28/16 10:05 AM, Alex Ignatov wrote:
>> Just curious: what if PostgreSQL supported index that stores "primary
>> key" (or unique key) instead of tids?
>
> You mean IOT like Oracle have?

IIRC, IOT either stores the table in index order, which is something 
different.

What Alex is proposing is an index method that stores a datum instead of 
a ctid. You would then use that datum to probe a different index to get 
the ctid. Or put simply, you have a PK index that contains ctid's, and a 
bunch of other indexes that contain a PK value instead of ctid's.

I think it's an idea worth pursuing, but I don't see how you can make it 
work with our MVCC system unless we drop the aversion to scanning back 
into an index as part of an update.
-- 
Jim Nasby, Data Architect, Blue Treble Consulting, Austin TX
Experts in Analytics, Data Architecture and PostgreSQL
Data in Trouble? Get it in Treble! http://BlueTreble.com
855-TREBLE2 (855-873-2532)   mobile: 512-569-9461



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Amit Kapila
Date:
Subject: Re: pg_basebackup wish list
Next
From: Jim Nasby
Date:
Subject: Re: "Strong sides of MySQL" talk from PgDay16Russia, translated