| From: | Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
| Cc: | Pavan Deolasee <pavan(dot)deolasee(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Heap WARM Tuples - Design Draft |
| Date: | 2016-08-04 16:55:25 |
| Message-ID: | 20160804165525.GK1702@momjian.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Thu, Aug 4, 2016 at 09:31:18AM -0700, Andres Freund wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On 2016-08-04 16:29:09 +0530, Pavan Deolasee wrote:
> > Indexes whose values do not change do not require new index pointers. Only
> > the index whose key is being changed will need a new index entry. The new
> > index entry will be set to the CTID of the root line pointer.
>
> That seems to require tracing all hot-chains in a page, to actually
> figure out what the root line pointer of a warm-updated HOT tuple is,
> provided it's HOT_UPDATED itself. Or have you found a smart way to
> figure that out?
The index points to the head of the HOT chain, and you just walk the
chain on the page --- on need to look at other chains on the page.
--
Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> http://momjian.us
EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com
+ As you are, so once was I. As I am, so you will be. +
+ Ancient Roman grave inscription +
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Simon Riggs | 2016-08-04 16:58:15 | Re: Lossy Index Tuple Enhancement (LITE) |
| Previous Message | Alfred Perlstein | 2016-08-04 16:52:56 | Re: Why we lost Uber as a user |