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

Re: Compressing the AFTER TRIGGER queue

From: Dean Rasheed <dean(dot)a(dot)rasheed(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Compressing the AFTER TRIGGER queue
Date: 2011-08-02 07:50:53
Message-ID: CAEZATCUO+SOweZuyuk+Gh-OzKwKpK1bvq7ohcN_PGcJ63eRwUQ@mail.gmail.com (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers
On 1 August 2011 20:53, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> Dean Rasheed <dean(dot)a(dot)rasheed(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
>> OK, so I should split this into 2 patches?
>> Even without the compression, it's probably worth the 16 -> 10 byte
>> reduction that would result from removing the 2nd CTID in the UPDATE
>> case, and that part would be a pretty small patch.
>
> Yeah, my point exactly.  The rest of it might or might not be worth the
> extra complication.
>

OK, here's a patch for the first bit - just removing the second CTID
in the UPDATE case, and including a sanity check of the new tuple's
xmin and cmin.

It passes all the regression tests. I also tested it by doing a 10M
row UPDATE x=x+1 on a deferrable PK, and it gave about the expected
reduction in memory usage, with no difference in run time.

I'll test out the additional compression separately.

Regards,
Dean

Attachment: after-triggers-1.patch
Description: application/octet-stream (9.7 KB)

In response to

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Florian PflugDate: 2011-08-02 08:33:39
Subject: Re: WIP fix proposal for bug #6123
Previous:From: Robert HaasDate: 2011-08-02 03:10:24
Subject: Re: pgbench internal contention

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