| From: | "Mark Woodward" <pgsql(at)mohawksoft(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | "Jan Wieck" <JanWieck(at)Yahoo(dot)com> |
| Cc: | "Jonah H(dot) Harris" <jonah(dot)harris(at)gmail(dot)com>, "Tom Lane" <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, "Csaba Nagy" <nagy(at)ecircle-ag(dot)com>, "Hannu Krosing" <hannu(at)skype(dot)net>, "Christopher Browne" <cbbrowne(at)acm(dot)org>, "postgres hackers" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: vacuum, performance, and MVCC |
| Date: | 2006-06-24 12:14:10 |
| Message-ID: | 18564.24.91.171.78.1151151250.squirrel@mail.mohawksoft.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
> On 6/23/2006 3:10 PM, Mark Woodward wrote:
>
>> This is NOT an "in-place" update. The whole MVCC strategy of keeping old
>> versions around doesn't change. The only thing that does change is one
>> level of indirection. Rather than keep references to all versions of all
>> rows in indexes, keep only a reference to the first or "key" row of each
>> row, and have the first version of a row form the head of a linked list
>> to
>> subsequent versions of each row. The list will be in decending order.
>
> Where exactly do you intend to keep all those links (for a table with N
> indexes)?
>
I'm probably mistaken, but aren't there already forward references in
tuples to later versions? If so, I'm only sugesting reversing the order
and referencing the latest version.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Martijn van Oosterhout | 2006-06-24 12:18:08 | Re: vacuum, performance, and MVCC |
| Previous Message | Volkan YAZICI | 2006-06-24 11:45:33 | Re: libpq Describe Extension [WAS: Bytea and perl] |