Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: Dynamic Partitioning using Segment Visibility Maps

From: Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>
To: Sam Mason <sam(at)samason(dot)me(dot)uk>
Cc: pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Dynamic Partitioning using Segment Visibility Maps
Date: 2008-01-03 09:44:25
Message-ID: 1199353465.7260.173.camel@ebony.site (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers
On Thu, 2008-01-03 at 00:41 +0000, Sam Mason wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 02, 2008 at 05:56:14PM +0000, Simon Riggs wrote:
> > Like it?
> 
> Sounds good.  I've only given it a quick scan though.  Would read-only
> segments retain the same disk-level format as is currently?  

Yes, no changes at all to the table. So your app would just work,
without any DDL changes. Existing partitioning apps would not change.

> It seems
> possible to remove the MVCC fields and hence get more tuples per page---
> whether this would actually be a net performance gain/loss seems like
> a difficult question question to answer, it would definitly be a
> complexity increase though.

I've been looking at general compression at table and segment level, but
thats further down the track. Removing the MVCC fields is too much work,
I think.

> Reading this reminds me of the design of the store for a persistent
> operating system called EROS.  It has a very good paper[1] describing
> the design (implementation and careful benchmarking thereof) that I
> think could be a useful read.

Thanks, will do.

-- 
  Simon Riggs
  2ndQuadrant  http://www.2ndQuadrant.com


In response to

Responses

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Martijn van OosterhoutDate: 2008-01-03 10:23:31
Subject: Re: Table rewrites vs. pending AFTER triggers
Previous:From: David FetterDate: 2008-01-03 08:11:00
Subject: Re: Table rewrites vs. pending AFTER triggers

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2014 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group