Re: Reusing Dead Tuples:

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Janardhan <jana-reddy(at)mediaring(dot)com(dot)sg>
Cc: PostgresSQL Hackers Mailing List <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Reusing Dead Tuples:
Date: 2002-12-13 07:37:21
Message-ID: 5876.1039765041@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Janardhan <jana-reddy(at)mediaring(dot)com(dot)sg> writes:
> Does it breaks any other things if all the index entries pointing the
> dead tuple are removed before reusing the dead tuple?.

Possibly you could make that work, but I think you'll find the
efficiency advantage you were chasing to be totally gone. The locking
scheme is heavily biased against you, and the index AMs don't offer an
API designed for efficient retail index-tuple deletion.

Of course that just says that you're swimming against the tide of
previous optimization efforts. But the thing you need to face up to
is you are taking what had been background maintenance tasks (viz,
VACUUM) and moving them into the foreground critical path. This *will*
slow down your foreground applications.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2002-12-13 07:56:38 Re: Creating a zero-column table
Previous Message Philip Warner 2002-12-13 07:31:38 Re: Creating a zero-column table