From: | Decibel! <decibel(at)decibel(dot)org> |
---|---|
To: | Gregory Stark <stark(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> |
Cc: | Pavan Deolasee <pavan(dot)deolasee(at)gmail(dot)com>, Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, Pavan Deolasee <pavan(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: HOT patch, missing things |
Date: | 2007-08-09 14:45:56 |
Message-ID: | 20070809144555.GL20424@nasby.net |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Thu, Aug 09, 2007 at 01:25:14PM +0100, Gregory Stark wrote:
> "Pavan Deolasee" <pavan(dot)deolasee(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
>
> > HOT update is feasible iff
> >
> > - old and new tuples, both match the partiality condition OR
> > - old and new tuples, both don't match the condition
> ...
> > For functional index, we should apply the function to the old and new
> > tuple and compare the outcome. If the results are same, HOT update
> > is feasible.
>
> This is debatable. We could compare the columns used in the partial condition
> expression or function expression directly. If they're the same then the
> expression or function must return the same value. If the function is quite
> expensive then that might be cheaper.
>
> On the other hand if it's not expensive and the columns change frequently but
> the results don't then we might be doing a lot of work for nothing.
If we're going to get this into 8.3 I think we should be leaning towards
whatever is the simplest way to do it...
--
Decibel!, aka Jim Nasby decibel(at)decibel(dot)org
EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com 512.569.9461 (cell)
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | korry.douglas | 2007-08-09 14:47:43 | Re: crypting prosrc in pg_proc |
Previous Message | Andrew Dunstan | 2007-08-09 14:42:49 | Re: crypting prosrc in pg_proc |