| From: | NikhilS <nikkhils(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | "Gregory Stark" <stark(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> |
| Cc: | "Zeugswetter Andreas ADI SD" <ZeugswetterA(at)spardat(dot)at>, "Tom Lane" <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, "Simon Riggs" <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Frequent Update Project: Design Overview of HOT Updates |
| Date: | 2006-11-10 13:08:10 |
| Message-ID: | d3c4af540611100508i3ba83754mc11fcb55080a9ec2@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Hi,
> I think the vision is that the overflow table would never be very large
> because it can be vacuumed very aggressively. It has only tuples that are
> busy
> and will need vacuuming as soon as a transaction ends. Unlike the main
> table
> which is mostly tuples that don't need vacuuming.
>
>
Thats right. vacuum if it gets a chance to work on the overflow relation
seems to be doing a decent job in our runs. If autovacuum/vacuum gets to run
optimally, the FSM information generated for the overflow relations will be
able to serve a lot of new tuple requests avoiding undue/large bloat in
the overflow relations.
Regards,
Nikhils
--
EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Simon Riggs | 2006-11-10 13:53:09 | Re: Frequent Update Project: Design Overview of HOTUpdates |
| Previous Message | NikhilS | 2006-11-10 12:57:40 | Re: Frequent Update Project: Design Overview of HOTUpdates |