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

Re: Faster Updates

From: Jim Nasby <jnasby(at)pervasive(dot)com>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: PFC <lists(at)peufeu(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Faster Updates
Date: 2006-06-05 13:14:31
Message-ID: 74D04147-1378-453C-B138-E1497AC95233@pervasive.com (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers
On Jun 3, 2006, at 10:27 AM, Tom Lane wrote:

> PFC <lists(at)peufeu(dot)com> writes:
>> 	What do you think ?
>
> Sounds enormously complicated and of very doubtful net win --- you're
> moving a lot of overhead into SELECT in order to make UPDATE cheaper,
> and on top of that the restriction to same-page will limit the
> usefulness quite a lot (unless we deliberately keep pages less than
> full, which costs a lot in distributed extra I/O).

A lot of CPU overhead, which in many cases won't really matter.

If someone has interest in testing this to see what impact it has,  
how hard would it be to hack together enough code to test the base  
concept? I'm thinking only basic SELECT and UPDATE support, along  
with a means to leave a certain percentage of each page empty.

In response to

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Jim NasbyDate: 2006-06-05 13:19:59
Subject: Re: 'CVS-Unknown' buildfarm failures?
Previous:From: Alvaro HerreraDate: 2006-06-05 13:14:08
Subject: Re: non-transactional pg_class

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