From: | Hans-Juergen Schoenig <postgres(at)cybertec(dot)at> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | Gregory Stark <stark(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: XIDs and big boxes again ... |
Date: | 2008-05-11 16:50:42 |
Message-ID: | 482723E2.9040602@cybertec.at |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Tom Lane wrote:
> Gregory Stark <stark(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> writes:
>
>> ... Keep in mind you're proposing to make everything run 3% slower instead of
>> using that 3% i/o bandwidth headroom to run vacuum outside the critical path.
>>
>
> I think that's actually understating the problem. Assuming this is a
> 64-bit machine (which it had better be, if you want XID to be 64 bits...)
> then the effective increase in tuple header size is not just 12 bytes
> but 16 bytes, due to alignment padding. Greg's 3% overhead number is
> only on-target if your average row width is presently about 530 bytes.
> It could easily be a whole lot less than that, and the overhead
> proportionally higher.
>
> regards, tom lane
>
overhead is not an issue here - if i lose 10 or 15% i am totally fine as
long as i can reduce vacuum overhead to an absolute minimum.
overhead will vary with row sizes anyway - this is not the point.
the point is that you don't want to potentially vacuum a table when only
a handful of records has been changed.
many thanks,
hans
--
Cybertec Schönig & Schönig GmbH
PostgreSQL Solutions and Support
Gröhrmühlgasse 26, A-2700 Wiener Neustadt
Tel: +43/1/205 10 35 / 340
www.postgresql-support.de, www.postgresql-support.com
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2008-05-11 17:01:49 | Re: XIDs and big boxes again ... |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2008-05-11 16:46:51 | Re: XIDs and big boxes again ... |