From: | Ron Mayer <rm_pg(at)cheapcomplexdevices(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | "Jim C(dot) Nasby" <jnasby(at)pervasive(dot)com> |
Subject: | Re: Automatic free space map filling |
Date: | 2006-03-05 00:23:47 |
Message-ID: | 440A2F93.6070701@cheapcomplexdevices.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Jim C. Nasby wrote:
> ... how many pages per bit ...
Are we trying to set up a complex solution to a problem
that'll be mostly moot once partitioning is easier and
partitioned tables are common?
In many cases I can think of the bulk of the data would be in
old partitions that are practically never written to (so would
need no vacuuming and could always use index-only lookups);
while the hot parts of large tables would be on partitions
that would need frequent vacuuming and wouldn't benefit
from index-only lookups.
In these cases, 1 bit per partition would work well,
and seems a lot easier to keep track of than bits-per-page.
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2006-03-05 01:48:29 | Re: Is TG_NARGS/TG_ARGV just legacy, or what? |
Previous Message | Andrew Dunstan | 2006-03-04 23:59:59 | Re: Is TG_NARGS/TG_ARGV just legacy, or what? |