Forgot to include the group... On Mon, Feb 22, 2010 at 4:31 PM, Gokulakannan Somasundaram < gokul...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >> These sound like the same point to me. I don't think we're concerned >> with footprint -- only with how much of that footprint actually needs >> to be scanned. So if we have a solution allowing the scan to only need >> to look at the index then the extra footprint of the table doesn't >> cost anything at run-time. And the visibility map is very small. >> >> > Yep.. They are one and the same... > Just wanted a clarification on the design goals going forward. > > Thanks, > Gokul. > >
