From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | Kevin Grittner <Kevin(dot)Grittner(at)wicourts(dot)gov>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: limiting hint bit I/O |
Date: | 2011-01-14 19:51:03 |
Message-ID: | 10078.1295034663@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> On Fri, Jan 14, 2011 at 2:09 PM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
>> Freezing sooner isn't likely to reduce I/O compared to hint bits. What
>> that does is create I/O that you *have* to execute ... both in the pages
>> themselves, and in WAL.
> It depends on which way you tilt your head - right now, we rewrite
> each table 3x - once to populate, once to hint, and once to freeze.
> If the table is doomed to survive long enough to go through all three
> of those, then freezing is better than hinting. Of course, that's not
> always the case, but people keep complaining about the way this shakes
> out.
The people whose tables are mostly insert-only complain about it, but
that's not the majority of our userbase IMO. We just happen to have a
couple of particularly vocal ones, like Berkus.
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Dimitri Fontaine | 2011-01-14 19:54:12 | Re: LOCK for non-tables |
Previous Message | Kevin Grittner | 2011-01-14 19:49:29 | Re: Database file copy |