| From: | Robert Treat <xzilla(at)users(dot)sourceforge(dot)net> |
|---|---|
| To: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Cc: | "Simon Riggs" <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, "Zeugswetter Andreas ADI SD" <ZeugswetterA(at)spardat(dot)at>, "Tom Lane" <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Subject: | Re: Frequent Update Project: Design Overview of HOTUpdates |
| Date: | 2006-11-12 18:01:20 |
| Message-ID: | 200611121301.21287.xzilla@users.sourceforge.net |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Friday 10 November 2006 08:53, Simon Riggs wrote:
> On Fri, 2006-11-10 at 12:32 +0100, Zeugswetter Andreas ADI SD wrote:
> > 4. although at first it might seem so I see no advantage for vacuum with
> > overflow
>
> No need to VACUUM the indexes, which is the most expensive part. The
> more indexes you have, the more VACUUM costs, not so with HOT.
>
This isn't exactly true though right? Since the more indexes you have, the
more likely it is that your updating an indexed column, which means HOT isn't
going to work for you. One common use case that seems problematic is the
indexed, frequently updated timestamp field.
--
Robert Treat
Build A Brighter LAMP :: Linux Apache {middleware} PostgreSQL
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Jaime Casanova | 2006-11-12 19:31:24 | error compiling 8.2 in debian sarge |
| Previous Message | Andrew Dunstan | 2006-11-12 16:03:49 | Re: [PATCHES] WIP 2 interpreters for plperl |