From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
To: K C Lau <kclau60@netvigator.com>
Cc: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: Why so slow?
Date: Fri, 28 Apr 2006 22:39:28 -0400
Message-ID: <19397.1146278368@sss.pgh.pa.us> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <6.2.1.2.0.20060429084119.05290438@localhost>
References: <20060428145842.GI97354@pervasive.com>
<BAY101-F3027DA179AC8CEE9FAAF77ADB20@phx.gbl>
<20060428190005.GA15689@wolff.to>
<6.2.1.2.0.20060429084119.05290438@localhost>
K C Lau <kclau60@netvigator.com> writes:
> Without knowing the internals, I have this simplistic idea: if Postgres
> maintains the current lowest transaction ID for all active transactions, it
> probably could recycle dead tuples on the fly.
[ yawn... ] Yes, we've heard that before. The hard part is getting rid
of index entries.
regards, tom lane
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Reply to all the recipients using the --to and --cc options:
reply via email
To: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org
Cc: tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us, kclau60@netvigator.com
Subject: Re: Why so slow?
In-Reply-To: <19397.1146278368@sss.pgh.pa.us>
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
This inbox is served by DDX for PostgreSQL; see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox