On Thu, 2008-01-03 at 00:41 +0000, Sam Mason wrote: > On Wed, Jan 02, 2008 at 05:56:14PM +0000, Simon Riggs wrote: > > Like it? > > Sounds good. I've only given it a quick scan though. Would read-only > segments retain the same disk-level format as is currently?
Yes, no changes at all to the table. So your app would just work, without any DDL changes. Existing partitioning apps would not change. > It seems > possible to remove the MVCC fields and hence get more tuples per page--- > whether this would actually be a net performance gain/loss seems like > a difficult question question to answer, it would definitly be a > complexity increase though. I've been looking at general compression at table and segment level, but thats further down the track. Removing the MVCC fields is too much work, I think. > Reading this reminds me of the design of the store for a persistent > operating system called EROS. It has a very good paper[1] describing > the design (implementation and careful benchmarking thereof) that I > think could be a useful read. Thanks, will do. -- Simon Riggs 2ndQuadrant http://www.2ndQuadrant.com ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 6: explain analyze is your friend
