Re: Frequent Update Project: Design Overview of HOTUpdates

From: "Nikhil S" <nikhil(dot)sontakke(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>
To: "Tom Lane" <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: "Simon Riggs" <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Frequent Update Project: Design Overview of HOTUpdates
Date: 2006-11-10 12:54:35
Message-ID: 4554768B.4070700@enterprisedb.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Hi,
> True, but Nikhil has run tests that clearly show HOT outperforming
> current situation in the case of long running transactions. The need to
> optimise HeapTupleSatisfiesVacuum() and avoid long chains does still
> remain a difficulty for both HOT and the current situation.
>

Yes, I carried out some pgbench runs comparing our current HOT update
patch with PG82BETA2 sources for the long running transaction case. For
an apples to apples comparison we got roughly 170% improvement with the
HOT update patch over BETA2.

In case of BETA2, since all versions are in the main heap, we end up
doing multiple index scans for them. In case of HOT updates, we have a
single index entry with the chains getting traversed from the overflow
relation. So as Simon has mentioned the need to avoid long chains remains
a difficulty for both the situations.

Regards,
Nikhils

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message NikhilS 2006-11-10 12:57:40 Re: Frequent Update Project: Design Overview of HOTUpdates
Previous Message Gregory Stark 2006-11-10 12:52:47 Re: Frequent Update Project: Design Overview of HOTUpdates