> > Have you considered column-oriented storage where each column is > homogenous and can be mmapped? > That is actually the direction I am going in. It doesn't make sense for all of my tables, but I think it might be the right approach for most of them.
On Tuesday, March 25, 2014 9:57:08 PM UTC-5, Stefan Karpinski wrote: > > On Tue, Mar 25, 2014 at 8:11 PM, Keith Mason <[email protected]<javascript:> > > wrote: > >> Got it, thanks. In these terms, I guess I wish that there was an option >> for mutable composite types to be stored inline rather than heap allocated. >> > > That's often called a (mutable) value type. E.g. C# distinguishes > reference types – objects that are passed and assigned by reference/sharing > – from value types, which are like C structs and are passed and assigned by > copying. (If you think of reference types as pointers to objects, you're > basically right). Rather than introducing two radically semantically > different kinds of types, we opted for mutable versus immutable which have > the same semantics except for the obvious difference that you can't mutate > an immutable value. This distinction is much simpler to understand and nice > for lots of things, but it is occasionally limiting. > > Anyway, this has been helpful, if only to confirm that there isn't a great >> way to do what I want. I need to rethink the problem space. >> > > Have you considered column-oriented storage where each column is > homogenous and can be mmapped? >
