On Mon, Jan 17, 2011 at 7:56 PM, Jim Nasby <j...@nasby.net> wrote: > - 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.
That seems like an interesting idea, but I actually don't see why it would be any more efficient, and it seems like you'd end up reinventing things like vacuum and free space map management. > - Dynamic forks would make it possible to do a column-store database, or at > least something approximating one. I've been wondering whether we could do something like this by treating a table t with columns pk, a1, a2, a3, b1, b2, b3 as two tables t1 and t2, one with columns pk, a1, a2, a3 and the other with columns pk, b1, b2, b3. SELECT * FROM t would be translated into SELECT * FROM t1, t2 WHERE t1.pk = t2.pk. -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers