Re: Frequent Update Project: Design Overview ofHOTUpdates

From: August Zajonc <augustz(at)augustz(dot)com>
To: Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>
Cc: pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Frequent Update Project: Design Overview ofHOTUpdates
Date: 2006-11-13 18:32:51
Message-ID: 4558BA53.3050102@augustz.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Simon Riggs wrote:
> If my assumption is badly wrong on that then perhaps HOT would not be
> useful after all. If we find that the majority of UPDATEs meet the HOT
> pre-conditions, then I would continue to advocate it.

This is exactly my situation. All updated hit non-indexed fields, with a
lot of lookups on indexes

What's interesting for me is that I might want to move away from some
heavy INSERT/DELETE cases to simply marking records as deleted on the
application side with this. The benefit being that I retain the archive
of "processed" items without having to move them, but get the advantage
of good throughput for the smaller set of items being "worked on".

Will be interesting to see how the design pans out.

- August

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message du li 2006-11-14 02:52:44 Help me pack up postgresDB with my windows application.
Previous Message Andrew Dunstan 2006-11-13 17:16:16 Re: [PATCHES] WIP 2 interpreters for plperl