| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | PFC <lists(at)peufeu(dot)com> |
| Cc: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Faster Updates |
| Date: | 2006-06-03 15:27:03 |
| Message-ID: | 16058.1149348423@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
PFC <lists(at)peufeu(dot)com> writes:
> What do you think ?
Sounds enormously complicated and of very doubtful net win --- you're
moving a lot of overhead into SELECT in order to make UPDATE cheaper,
and on top of that the restriction to same-page will limit the
usefulness quite a lot (unless we deliberately keep pages less than
full, which costs a lot in distributed extra I/O).
Basically this is an extension of the notion of update tuple chains.
Anyone who's been around the project awhile will know that we've had
an unreasonably large number of corner-case bugs associated with tuple
chains (particularly in VACUUM FULL), so adding a second level of
complexity to 'em doesn't sound very appealing to me.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Jim Nasby | 2006-06-03 15:43:39 | Re: More thoughts about planner's cost estimates |
| Previous Message | Tino Wildenhain | 2006-06-03 15:26:55 | Re: COPY (query) TO file |