RE: [HACKERS] LONG
Hiroshi Inoue <inoue@tpf.co.jp>
From: "Hiroshi Inoue" <Inoue@tpf.co.jp>
To: "Jan Wieck" <wieck@debis.com>
Cc: <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>, <pgsql-hackers@postgreSQL.org>, "Bruce Momjian" <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us>
Date: 1999-12-13T03:56:08Z
Lists: pgsql-hackers
> -----Original Message----- > From: owner-pgsql-hackers@postgreSQL.org > [mailto:owner-pgsql-hackers@postgreSQL.org]On Behalf Of Jan Wieck > > > > > Having a separate oid for the long value is great. You can then have > > multiple versions of the long attribute in the long table and can > > control when updating a tuple. > > > > I liked Hiroshi's idea of allowing long values in an index by just > > pointing to the long table. Seems that would work too. varlena access > > routines make that possible. > > Maybe possible, but not that good IMHO. Would cause another > index scan from inside index scan to get at the value. An we > all agree that indexing huge values isn't that a good thing > at all. > What I need is an unqiue index (rowid,rowattno,chunk_seq) on "secondary" table. Is it different from your orginal idea ? I don't need any index on primary table. Regards. Hiroshi Inoue Inoue@tpf.co.jp