+1, and I know Sybase had this in 11.0.3, which IIRC is over 10 years
old now.
BTW,
http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-performance/2004-08/msg00492.php is
one discussion about this from the past. I seem to recall that there was
an objection to true Index Organized Tables because it would be too
On Thu, 2005-11-17 at 21:57 -0300, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
Personally I'd prefer to see index-ordered heaps, where the heap is
itself an index, so the ordering it automatically kept.
Agreed. (I think thats case-closed on the previous proposal.)
As an aside, Index Organized Tables (IOTs) isn't
That sounds very much like a CLUSTERED INDEX under Sybase ASE
(or the derivative Microsoft SQL Server). In those products, when you
create a clustered index, the data pages are sorted according to the
index sequence, and are used as the leaf pages in the index. A
clustered index does not have
When a table has been CLUSTERed on a particular index AND that index
values is monotonically increasing, then it would be a bad move to use
blocks from the FSM since this would tend to destroy the natural
clustering sequence.
The index values will be monotonically increasing if a datatype is
Simon Riggs [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
When a table has been CLUSTERed on a particular index AND that index
values is monotonically increasing, then it would be a bad move to use
blocks from the FSM since this would tend to destroy the natural
clustering sequence.
By the time there are any
Simon Riggs wrote:
When a table has been CLUSTERed on a particular index AND that index
values is monotonically increasing, then it would be a bad move to use
blocks from the FSM since this would tend to destroy the natural
clustering sequence.
The index values will be monotonically
On Thu, 2005-11-17 at 10:58 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
Simon Riggs [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
When a table has been CLUSTERed on a particular index AND that index
values is monotonically increasing, then it would be a bad move to use
blocks from the FSM since this would tend to destroy the
Simon Riggs wrote:
On Thu, 2005-11-17 at 10:58 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
Simon Riggs [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
The use case exists and the technique is low overhead, but the main
question is: Does anybody think this behaviour would be beneficial for
them? (I'm actually in two minds myself, but
I agree, keeping it clustered would be very nice.
On 11/17/05, Alvaro Herrera [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Simon Riggs wrote: On Thu, 2005-11-17 at 10:58 -0500, Tom Lane wrote: Simon Riggs
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: The use case exists and the technique is low overhead, but the main question is: Does
