Re: Further open item (Was: Status of 7.2)

From: Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>
Cc: "Tille, Andreas" <TilleA(at)rki(dot)de>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Further open item (Was: Status of 7.2)
Date: 2001-11-16 17:02:16
Message-ID: 200111161702.fAGH2GW03449@candle.pha.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

> We are always willing to discuss changes that improve performance,
> reliability, standards compliance, etc. However, "MS SQL does it, and MS
> SQL is fast" is not sufficient proof that a feature would improve average
> performance in PostgreSQL. This issue has been brought up with similarly
> unsatisfactory arguments in the past, so you should be able to find out
> about the discussion in the archives. Some of the arguments against this
> change were bigger indexes, slower write operations, non-existent proof
> that it's really faster, putting the index on a different disk will mostly
> obsolete the issue. Consequently, this is currently not something that
> has got a chance to be implemented anytime soon.

I personally would like to have index scans that look up heap rows
record the heap expired status into the index entry via one bit of
storage. This will not _prevent_ checking the heap but it will prevent
heap lookups for index entries that have been exipred for a long time.
However, with the new vacuum, and perhaps autovacuum coming soon, may be
little need for this optimization.

The underlying problem the user is seeing is how to _know_ an index
tuple is valid without checking the heap, and I don't see how to do that
unless we start storing the transaction id in the index tuple, and that
requires extra storage.

--
Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us
pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us | (610) 853-3000
+ If your life is a hard drive, | 830 Blythe Avenue
+ Christ can be your backup. | Drexel Hill, Pennsylvania 19026

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Trond Eivind =?iso-8859-1?q?Glomsr=F8d?= 2001-11-16 17:17:06 7.2b2 "make check" failure on Red Hat Linux 7.2
Previous Message Peter Eisentraut 2001-11-16 16:38:15 Re: Further open item (Was: Status of 7.2)