| From: | "Merlin Moncure" <mmoncure(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | "Joshua D(dot) Drake" <jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com> |
| Cc: | "Simon Riggs" <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org, "Pavan Deolasee" <pavan(dot)deolasee(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, "Nikhil S" <nikhil(dot)sontakke(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, "Heikki Linnakangas" <heikki(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> |
| Subject: | Re: HOT for PostgreSQL 8.3 |
| Date: | 2007-02-07 21:52:29 |
| Message-ID: | b42b73150702071352u7f50a6d6u66bdba8e3d83acd5@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 2/7/07, Joshua D. Drake <jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com> wrote:
> Simon Riggs wrote:
> > Heap Only Tuples ("HOT") is a simplification of earlier proposals for
> > improving the way the server handles frequent updates, based upon what's
> > been learned and feedback received.
> Uhmmm... how often is that the case? Don't get me wrong, bravo but that
> seems a rather large limitation.
>
> Considering it, this would certainly be a boon in web space where you
> have things like Rails doing:
HOT is great for tables that are updated frequently via triggers or
cron right? so it this eliminate the need to vacuum foo following
executing:
update foo set v =1 where id =1;
where v is not an index, right?
if so, it would be great all kinds of things, especially
materialization techniques. or any situation where a table is updated
so frequently autovac can't keep up. I can think of tons of places
where this would be useful.
merlin
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2007-02-07 23:13:39 | Re: Status of autovacuum and the sporadic stats failures ? |
| Previous Message | Joshua D. Drake | 2007-02-07 20:57:50 | Re: HOT for PostgreSQL 8.3 |