| From: | Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | pgsql-patches(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Page at a time index scan |
| Date: | 2006-05-03 14:54:50 |
| Message-ID: | 1146668090.449.113.camel@localhost.localdomain |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-patches |
On Wed, 2006-05-03 at 10:17 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> writes:
> You are optimizing the wrong thing here. If we choose not to mark an
> entry dead then we will pay for that omission on every future scan of
> the same entry. I don't think that outweighs the (doubtless rare)
> situation where we expend an extra page fetch to reload the page.
Sounds a familiar conversation, which I shouldn't have raised here.
This depends upon whether the pages being accessed are in cache or not,
and whether we have sufficient I/O to pay the cost of a write. Reads
don't always go to disk, writes always do. I see that its difficult to
tell which is which, but that doesn't mean there aren't different cases.
--
Simon Riggs
EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2006-05-03 14:56:56 | Re: Page at a time index scan |
| Previous Message | Simon Riggs | 2006-05-03 14:45:15 | Re: Page at a time index scan |