Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

perf: Do not use pointer map for tables with a unique constraint #2019

Open
Centril opened this issue Nov 27, 2024 · 2 comments
Open

perf: Do not use pointer map for tables with a unique constraint #2019

Centril opened this issue Nov 27, 2024 · 2 comments
Assignees

Comments

@Centril
Copy link
Contributor

Centril commented Nov 27, 2024

No description provided.

@Centril Centril self-assigned this Nov 27, 2024
@gefjon
Copy link
Contributor

gefjon commented Nov 27, 2024

I would perhaps reframe this as making it so that every table has a single primary key index, which by default is on the tuple of all its columns, but can be narrowed to a single row or a smaller tuple. But that may be too large of a rearchitecting to make in our timeframe.

In the simpler ("hacky") version, Table::delete, aka delete_by_row_value, which devolves to Table::find_same_row, will need to contain additional logic to locate a unique index and use it to scan for the sought row. I am not concerned about the performance of this, but it may require significant fiddling just to make it work.

@Centril
Copy link
Contributor Author

Centril commented Nov 27, 2024

I would perhaps reframe this as making it so that every table has a single primary key index, which by default is on the tuple of all its columns, but can be narrowed to a single row or a smaller tuple. But that may be too large of a rearchitecting to make in our timeframe.

That sounds like a nice way of looking at it, but as you say, doing the hack might be more within our time-constraints, for now. I think I'll try the hack first and then we can make it pretty later on.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

2 participants