X-Original-To: pgsql-performance-postgresql.org@localhost.postgresql.org Received: from localhost (mx1.hub.org [200.46.208.251]) by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id EF86411F605C for ; Fri, 28 Apr 2006 23:39:44 -0300 (ADT) Received: from postgresql.org ([200.46.204.71]) by localhost (mx1.hub.org [200.46.208.251]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 45624-09 for ; Fri, 28 Apr 2006 23:39:33 -0300 (ADT) X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey- Received: from sss.pgh.pa.us (sss.pgh.pa.us [66.207.139.130]) by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2157211F6029 for ; Fri, 28 Apr 2006 23:39:30 -0300 (ADT) Received: from sss2.sss.pgh.pa.us (tgl@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sss.pgh.pa.us (8.13.6/8.13.6) with ESMTP id k3T2dSg8019398; Fri, 28 Apr 2006 22:39:28 -0400 (EDT) To: K C Lau cc: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org Subject: Re: Why so slow? In-reply-to: <6.2.1.2.0.20060429084119.05290438@localhost> References: <20060428145842.GI97354@pervasive.com> <20060428190005.GA15689@wolff.to> <6.2.1.2.0.20060429084119.05290438@localhost> Comments: In-reply-to K C Lau message dated "Sat, 29 Apr 2006 09:46:06 +0800" Date: Fri, 28 Apr 2006 22:39:28 -0400 Message-ID: <19397.1146278368@sss.pgh.pa.us> From: Tom Lane X-Virus-Scanned: Maia Mailguard 1.0.1 X-Archive-Number: 200604/685 X-Sequence-Number: 18769 K C Lau 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