| From: | Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | "Bossart, Nathan" <bossartn(at)amazon(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, "McAlister, Grant" <grant(at)amazon(dot)com>, "Mlodgenski, Jim" <mlodj(at)amazon(dot)com>, "Nasby, Jim" <nasbyj(at)amazon(dot)com>, "Hsu, John" <hsuchen(at)amazon(dot)com> |
| Subject: | Re: partial heap only tuples |
| Date: | 2021-03-09 23:48:43 |
| Message-ID: | 20210309234843.GA16791@momjian.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, Mar 9, 2021 at 09:33:31PM +0000, Bossart, Nathan wrote:
> I'm cautiously optimistic that index creation and deletion will not
> require too much extra work. For example, if a new index needs to
> point to a partial heap only tuple, it can do so (unlike HOT, which
> would require that the new index point to the root of the chain). The
> modified-columns bitmaps could include the entire set of modified
> columns (not just the indexed ones), so no additional changes would
> need to be made there. Furthermore, I'm anticipating that the
> modified-columns bitmaps will end up only being used with the
> redirected LPs to help reduce heap bloat after single-page vacuuming.
> In that case, new indexes would probably avoid the existing bitmaps
> anyway.
Yes, that would probably work, sure.
--
Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> https://momjian.us
EDB https://enterprisedb.com
The usefulness of a cup is in its emptiness, Bruce Lee
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | David Steele | 2021-03-10 00:28:47 | Re: [patch] [doc] Minor variable related cleanup and rewording of plpgsql docs |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2021-03-09 23:37:44 | Re: Huge memory consumption on partitioned table with FKs |