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

Longer startup delay (was Re: Single Index Tuple Chain (SITC) method)

From: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: Martijn van Oosterhout <kleptog(at)svana(dot)org>,Hannu Krosing <hannu(at)skype(dot)net>, Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>,PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>,Greg Stark <gsstark(at)mit(dot)edu>, PFC <lists(at)peufeu(dot)com>
Subject: Longer startup delay (was Re: Single Index Tuple Chain (SITC) method)
Date: 2006-06-29 17:08:33
Message-ID: 20060629170833.GA7756@surnet.cl (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers
Tom Lane wrote:

> Another issue is that this would replace a simple hint-bit setting with
> an index change that requires a WAL entry.  There'll be more WAL traffic
> altogether from backends retail-deleting index tuples than there would
> be from VACUUM cleaning the whole page at once

Speaking of which, I think I've noticed a longer delay in server start
after initdb.  I haven't measured nor profiled it, but I think it may be
because of the heap_inplace_update xlogging that we weren't doing
previously.

-- 
Alvaro Herrera                                http://www.CommandPrompt.com/
The PostgreSQL Company - Command Prompt, Inc.

In response to

Responses

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Martijn van OosterhoutDate: 2006-06-29 17:33:50
Subject: Re: Single Index Tuple Chain (SITC) method
Previous:From: Hannu KrosingDate: 2006-06-29 16:59:26
Subject: Re: Single Index Tuple Chain (SITC) method

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