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

Re: Equivalent praxis to CLUSTERED INDEX?

From: Gaetano Mendola <mendola(at)bigfoot(dot)com>
To: Greg Stark <gsstark(at)mit(dot)edu>
Subject: Re: Equivalent praxis to CLUSTERED INDEX?
Date: 2004-08-28 11:39:31
Message-ID: 41306EF3.2030304@bigfoot.com (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-performance
Greg Stark wrote:

> Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> writes:
> 
> 
>>>Don't you think this will permit also to avoid extra disk seek and cache
>>>invalidation? If you are updating the row (0,1) I think is less expensive
>>>put the new version in (0,2) instead of thousand line far from that point.
> 
> 
> Well if the other buffer "a thousand lines far from that point" is already in
> ram, then no, there's no penalty at the time for storing it there.

I was wandering about the cache invalidation, may be the ram is big enough but I
doubt about the cache, the recommendation in this case is to modify adjacent
memory address instead of jumping.


Regards
Gaetano Mendola



In response to

pgsql-performance by date

Next:From: andrewDate: 2004-08-28 15:13:37
Subject: Re: ill-planned queries inside a stored procedure
Previous:From: Gaetano MendolaDate: 2004-08-28 11:14:38
Subject: ill-planned queries inside a stored procedure

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