From: | "Simon Riggs" <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com> |
Cc: | <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Frequent Update Project: Design Overview of HOTUpdates |
Date: | 2006-11-09 22:44:57 |
Message-ID: | 1163112297.3634.570.camel@silverbirch.site |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Thu, 2006-11-09 at 13:21 -0800, Josh Berkus wrote:
> Simon,
>
> > If we perform an update that meets the HOT criteria then we put the
> > new version into the overflow relation; we describe this as a HOT
> > UPDATE. If we perform an update that does not meet the criteria, then we
> > carry on with the existing/old MVCC behaviour; we describe this as a
> > non-HOT UPDATE.
>
> Making the essential performance analysis question, "Am I HOT or Not?"
Very good. ;-)
Well, we had Overflow Update CHaining as an alternative name... :-)
The naming sounds silly, but we had a few alternate designs, so we
needed to be able to tell them apart sensibly. We've had TVR, SITC, UIP
and now HOT. Software research...
--
Simon Riggs
EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2006-11-09 23:17:33 | Re: Introducing an advanced Frequent Update Optimization |
Previous Message | Mark Dilger | 2006-11-09 22:41:35 | Re: plperl/plperlu interaction |