Skip site navigation (1)
Skip section navigation (2)
Peripheral Links
Re: Compressing the AFTER TRIGGER queue
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)
Description: application/octet-stream (9.7 KB)
In response to
- Re: Compressing the AFTER TRIGGER queue at 2011-08-01 19:53:19 from Tom Lane
pgsql-hackers by date
Next: From: Florian Pflug Date: 2011-08-02 08:33:39 Subject: Re: WIP fix proposal for bug #6123 Previous: From: Robert Haas Date: 2011-08-02 03:10:24 Subject: Re: pgbench internal contention