Re: [Testperf-general] Re: ExclusiveLock

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>
Cc: josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org, testperf-general(at)pgfoundry(dot)org
Subject: Re: [Testperf-general] Re: ExclusiveLock
Date: 2004-11-18 22:51:07
Message-ID: 20905.1100818267@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> writes:
> The main problem on INSERTs is that it is usually the same few pages:
> the lead data block and the lead index block. There are ways of
> spreading the load out across an index, but I'm not sure what happens on
> the leading edge of the data relation, but I think it hits the same
> block each time.

FSM does what it can to spread the insertion load across multiple pages,
but of course this is not going to help much unless your table has lots
of embedded free space. I think it would work pretty well on a table
with lots of update turnover, but not on an INSERT-only workload.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2004-11-18 22:55:22 Re: [Testperf-general] Re: ExclusiveLock
Previous Message Josh Berkus 2004-11-18 22:50:59 Re: [Testperf-general] Re: ExclusiveLock