On Jan 17, 2011, at 6:36 PM, Tomas Vondra wrote: > 1) Forks are 'per relation' but the distinct estimators are 'per > column' (or 'per group of columns') so I'm not sure whether the file > should contain all the estimators for the table, or if there should > be one fork for each estimator. The former is a bit difficult to > manage, the latter somehow breaks the current fork naming convention.
Yeah, when I looked at the fork stuff I was disappointed to find out there's essentially no support for dynamically adding forks. There's two other possible uses for that I can think of: - Forks are very possibly a more efficient way to deal with TOAST than having separate tables. There's a fair amount of overhead we pay for the current setup. - Dynamic forks would make it possible to do a column-store database, or at least something approximating one. Without some research, there's no way to know if either of the above makes sense; but without dynamic forks we're pretty much dead in the water. So I wonder what it would take to support dynamically adding forks... -- Jim C. Nasby, Database Architect j...@nasby.net 512.569.9461 (cell) http://jim.nasby.net -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
