Re: LSM tree for Postgres - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Konstantin Knizhnik
Subject Re: LSM tree for Postgres
Date
Msg-id aec15e35-0678-f5b6-5e79-61c0154b83ec@postgrespro.ru
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: LSM tree for Postgres  (Stephen Frost <sfrost@snowman.net>)
List pgsql-hackers

On 04.08.2020 18:18, Stephen Frost wrote:
>
> Independently while considering this, I don't think the issues around
> how to deal with unique btrees properly has really been considered- you
> certainly can't stop your search on the first tuple you find even if the
> index is unique, since the "unique" btree could certainly have multiple
> entries for a given key and you might need to find a different one.
But search locates not ANY record with specified key in top index but record
which satisfies snapshot of the transaction. Why do we need more records 
if we know that
there are no duplicates?



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Konstantin Knizhnik
Date:
Subject: Re: LSM tree for Postgres
Next
From: "Andrey M. Borodin"
Date:
Subject: Re: Yet another fast GiST build (typo)