Re: Fwd: Clarification about HOT

From: Martijn van Oosterhout <kleptog(at)svana(dot)org>
To: Gokulakannan Somasundaram <gokul007(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, PostgreSQL-development Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Fwd: Clarification about HOT
Date: 2007-11-05 16:48:04
Message-ID: 20071105164804.GA17512@svana.org
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Mon, Nov 05, 2007 at 09:32:08PM +0530, Gokulakannan Somasundaram wrote:
> Say, if we have a table with 4 indexes and updates occur in such intervals,
> we may not be able to find space in the same page for the update. Currently
> we are incurring the overhead of updating all the indexes in this scenario.
> Even if one of the index is updated, we will be incurring the same overhead
> again in the current scenario.

Ok, I've been following this tangentially, but here is one thing I
really don't understand: Sure, you might save this cost during update,
but you do incur this cost while updating the head of the chain. There
is no link from the chain to the index tuple, so the work to find the
current index tuple is nearly the same as the cost to create a new one.

It seems to me that updating and pruning the head will happen about
equally often, so I'm not sure you're saving anything here. Or am I
missing something?

Have a nice day,
--
Martijn van Oosterhout <kleptog(at)svana(dot)org> http://svana.org/kleptog/
> Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable.
> -- John F Kennedy

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Gokulakannan Somasundaram 2007-11-05 16:58:20 Re: Fwd: Clarification about HOT
Previous Message Gregory Stark 2007-11-05 16:22:53 Re: pgsql: Add a note about another issue that needs to be considered before