From: | Gokulakannan Somasundaram <gokul007(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | pgsql-hackers list <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Proposal for Performance improvement for unique checks |
Date: | 2010-03-27 07:11:32 |
Message-ID: | 9362e74e1003270011i376e1647u847535aa1421ff33@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
I don't think this should involve much code change. But no-one
interested????
On Sat, Mar 27, 2010 at 2:23 AM, Gokulakannan Somasundaram <
gokul007(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> Hi,
> Since we insert a new entry into the index for every update that's being
> made into the table, we inevitably make a unique check against the older
> version of the newly inserted row, even when the values are not updated. Of
> course i am talking about non-HOT updates. (We will not go to the index for
> HOT updates)
>
> a) The page which contains the index entry is Exclusively locked
> b) We go ahead and visit the heap page for its HeapTupleSatisfiesDirty.
>
> If we have the information of the old tuple(its tuple-id) after a heap
> update, during the index insert, we can avoid the uniqueness check for this
> tuple,as we know for sure that tuple won't satisfy the visibility criteria.
> If the table has 'n' unique indexes it avoids 'n' heap tuple lookups, also
> increasing the concurrency in the btree, as the write lock duration is
> reduced.
>
> Any comments?
>
> Thanks,
> Gokul.
>
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Peter Eisentraut | 2010-03-27 09:23:34 | changes to documentation build |
Previous Message | Joseph Adams | 2010-03-27 02:19:14 | Re: Proposal: access control jails (and introduction as aspiring GSoC student) |