| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Hannu Krosing <hannu(at)tm(dot)ee>, Christopher Browne <cbbrowne(at)libertyrms(dot)info>, pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: COUNT(*) again (was Re: [HACKERS] Index/Function organized table layout) |
| Date: | 2003-10-05 06:08:31 |
| Message-ID: | 28313.1065334111@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers pgsql-performance |
Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> writes:
> Tom Lane wrote:
>> I think that's not happening, conditionally or otherwise. The atomicity
>> problems alone are sufficient reason why not, even before you look at
>> the performance issues.
> What are the atomicity problems of adding a create/expire xid to the
> index tuples?
You can't update a tuple's status in just one place ... you have to
update the copies in the indexes too.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2003-10-05 06:11:11 | Re: Thoughts on maintaining 7.3 |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2003-10-05 06:01:18 | Re: Open 7.4 items |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Matt Clark | 2003-10-05 11:14:24 | Re: reindex/vacuum locking/performance? |
| Previous Message | Bruce Momjian | 2003-10-05 04:20:32 | Re: COUNT(*) again (was Re: [HACKERS] Index/Function organized |