| From: | Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net> |
|---|---|
| To: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Turning off HOT/Cleanup sometimes |
| Date: | 2014-01-10 01:28:22 |
| Message-ID: | 20140110012822.GS2686@tamriel.snowman.net |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
* Robert Haas (robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com) wrote:
> So when somebody says "relying on vacuum instead of doing
> HOT pruning" what I hear is "flush performance down the toilet"... but
> of course the real way to resolve this is to test whatever patch Simon
> or someone else eventually posts, not to speculate without data.
I don't think anyone was seriously proposing that (certainly not with
today's VACUUM). What I've heard speculated about is doing HOT pruning
during UPDATE and/or INSERT but specifically not during SELECT. I
concur that we need data to really understand the difference, hopefully
there'll be a patch posted which we can play with.
Thanks,
Stephen
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Marko Tiikkaja | 2014-01-10 01:42:55 | Display oprcode and its volatility in \do+ |
| Previous Message | Gavin Flower | 2014-01-10 01:24:50 | Re: Disallow arrays with non-standard lower bounds |