From: K C Lau <kclau60@netvigator.com>
To: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Cc: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: Why so slow?
Date: Sat, 29 Apr 2006 11:18:10 +0800
Message-ID: <6.2.1.2.0.20060429110036.02c01b98@localhost> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <19397.1146278368@sss.pgh.pa.us>
References: <20060428145842.GI97354@pervasive.com>
<BAY101-F3027DA179AC8CEE9FAAF77ADB20@phx.gbl>
<20060428190005.GA15689@wolff.to>
<6.2.1.2.0.20060429084119.05290438@localhost>
<19397.1146278368@sss.pgh.pa.us>
At 10:39 06/04/29, Tom Lane wrote:
>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
I apologize for simplistic ideas again. I presume that the equivalent tuple
header information is not maintained for index entries. What if they are,
probably only for the most commonly used index types to allow recycling
where possible? The extra space required would be recycled too. It would
probably also help save a trip to the tuple data pages to determine the
validity of index entries during index scans.
Cheers,
KC.
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: kclau60@netvigator.com, tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us
Subject: Re: Why so slow?
In-Reply-To: <6.2.1.2.0.20060429110036.02c01b98@localhost>
* 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