Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
> Bruce Momjian wrote:
> > Pavan Deolasee wrote:
> >> On Fri, Feb 26, 2010 at 8:19 AM, Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> wrote:
> >>> Whatever happened to this? It was in the first 9.0 commitfest but was
> >>> returned with feedback but never updated:
> >> Though Alex did some useful tests and review, and in fact confirmed that the
> >> VACUUM time dropped from 16494 msec to 366 msec, I somehow kept waiting for
> >> Heikki's decision on the general direction of the patch and lost interest in
> >> between. If we are still interested in this, I can work out a patch and
> >> submit for next release if not this.
> > OK, TODO added:
> > Have single-page pruning update the visibility map
> > * https://commitfest.postgresql.org/action/patch_view?id=75
> > Hopefully Heikki can comment on this.
> I think I was worried about the possible performance impact of having to
> clear the bit in visibility map again. If you're frequently updating a
> tuple so that HOT and page pruning is helping you, setting the bit in
> visibility map seems counter-productive; it's going to be cleared soon
> again by another UPDATE. That's just a hunch, though. Maybe the overhead
> is negligible.
Should I remove the TODO item? I updated the text to:
Consider having single-page pruning update the visibility map
and added a URL to Heikki's new comment.
Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> http://momjian.us
PG East: http://www.enterprisedb.com/community/nav-pg-east-2010.do
+ If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. +
In response to
pgsql-hackers by date
|Next:||From: Bruce Momjian||Date: 2010-02-27 14:44:49|
|Subject: Re: Small change of the HS document|
|Previous:||From: Bruce Momjian||Date: 2010-02-27 14:34:08|
|Subject: Re: Hot Standby query cancellation and Streaming