>ISTM we would be able to do this fairly well if we implemented
>Index-only columns. i.e. columns that don't exist in the heap, only in
>an index.
>Taken to the extreme, all columns could be removed from the heap and
>placed in an index(es). Only the visibility information would remain on
>
Avery,
>If someone writes the rest of the code, I doubt the syntax will be the
>holdup. But writing an efficient C-store table mechanism is much harder
>than I think you think it is; Vertica worked on it for a year and failed,
>and Paraccel took two years to succeed. FYI, Paraccel is b
In hindsight, I did miss quite a bit in my last post. Here's a summary
that might clear it up:
Add a single keyword that specifies that the storage format changes
slightly. The keyword should not affect SQL compliancy while still
extending functionality. It can be specified as either part o
Be forewarned - this is probably a very long post, and I'm just a mere
mortal (ie. admin) who doesn't write copious amounts of C code. Take
the following posts and suggestions with a grain of salt.
So I've been seeing/hearing all of the hoopla over vertical databases
(column stores), and how
