| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> | 
|---|---|
| To: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> | 
| Cc: | Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(dot)linnakangas(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org | 
| Subject: | Re: crash-safe visibility map, take three | 
| Date: | 2010-11-30 17:10:49 | 
| Message-ID: | 28581.1291137049@sss.pgh.pa.us | 
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email | 
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers | 
Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> We're not going to double the cost of VACUUM to get index-only scans.
> And that's exactly what will happen if you do full-page writes of
> every heap page to set a single bit.
It's ridiculous to claim that that "doubles the cost of VACUUM".  In the
worst case, it will add 25% to the cost of setting an all-visible bit on
a page where there is no other work to do.  (You already are writing out
the heap page and the VM page, plus a WAL image of the heap page, so a
WAL image of the VM page adds 25%.  But only if you did not set any
other bits on the same VM page, which is probably not a real common
case.)  Given that VACUUM has a lot of other cleanup besides visibility
bit setting, I'm not convinced that this would even be noticeable.
I think the burden is on people who are proposing complicated mechanisms
to show that there's actually a strong need for them.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Robert Haas | 2010-11-30 17:12:35 | Re: crash-safe visibility map, take three | 
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2010-11-30 17:03:40 | Re: Another proposal for table synonyms |