pg.ddx.io  pgsql-performance@postgresql.org mailing list archive  
help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Martin Lesser <ml-pgsql@bettercom.de>
To: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org
Cc: Denis <denis.sailer@yellowbook.com>
Cc: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: Reasons and drawbacks for unused item pointers (was: Update using primary key slow)
Date: Thu, 27 Oct 2005 23:01:55 +0200
Message-ID: <87y84eznb0.fsf_-_@nb-aspire.bettercom.de> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <23322.1130442063@sss.pgh.pa.us>
References: <Xns96FC6CBBEC0CDdenissaileryellowboo@200.46.204.72>
	<19722.1130429883@sss.pgh.pa.us>
	<Xns96FC85EFAC158denissaileryellowboo@200.46.204.72>
	<23322.1130442063@sss.pgh.pa.us>

Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> writes:

> Denis <denis.sailer@yellowbook.com> writes:
>> There were 1905028 unused item pointers.
> The "unused item pointers" number seems a bit high, but otherwise that
> looks pretty reasonable.
>
> Is it possible that the particular row you were updating has been
> updated quite a lot of times since the last vacuum?  Or even quite
> a few times within a single transaction?

What causes this "unused item pointers" and which impact do they have
regarding performance?

If I understood your last posting correctly more than one update on a
single row between two vacuum's would i.e. result in one ore more
"unused item pointer". Does this slow down the vacuum process and/or
other processes?  Until now I could not find an answer what this number
implies.

Regards

Martin



view thread (3+ messages)  latest in thread

Message-ID: <87y84eznb0.fsf_-_@nb-aspire.bettercom.de>
Permalink:  ../87y84eznb0.fsf_-_@nb-aspire.bettercom.de/
Also on:    postgresql.org/message-id/87y84eznb0.fsf_-_@nb-aspire.bettercom.de

 · 

reply

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: ml-pgsql@bettercom.de, denis.sailer@yellowbook.com
  Subject: Re: Reasons and drawbacks for unused item pointers (was: Update using primary key slow)
  In-Reply-To: <87y84eznb0.fsf_-_@nb-aspire.bettercom.de>

* 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