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 Nasby||Date: 2006-06-05 13:19:59|
|Subject: Re: 'CVS-Unknown' buildfarm failures?|
|Previous:||From: Alvaro Herrera||Date: 2006-06-05 13:14:08|
|Subject: Re: non-transactional pg_class|