Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: [SQL] Yet Another (Simple) Case of Index not used

From: Greg Stark <gsstark(at)mit(dot)edu>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: Kevin Brown <kevin(at)sysexperts(dot)com>,pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: [SQL] Yet Another (Simple) Case of Index not used
Date: 2003-04-23 16:32:09
Message-ID: (view raw, whole thread or download thread mbox)
Lists: pgsql-generalpgsql-performancepgsql-sql
Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> writes:

> AFAICS, central-counter techniques could only work in an MVCC system
> if each transaction copies every counter in the system at each snapshot
> freeze point, in case it finds itself needing that counter value later
> on.  This is a huge amount of mostly-useless overhead, and it makes the
> problem of lock contention for access to the counters several orders of
> magnitude worse than you'd first think.

Well, one option would be to do it in a lazy way. If you do an update on a
table with cached aggregate data just throw the data out. This way you get to
cache data on infrequently updated tables and get only a very small penalty on
frequently updated tables.


In response to

pgsql-performance by date

Next:From: Frederic JollitonDate: 2003-04-23 17:53:55
Subject: Important speed difference between a query and a function with the same query
Previous:From: Will LaShellDate: 2003-04-22 17:44:48
Subject: Re: the RAID question, again

pgsql-sql by date

Next:From: Josh BerkusDate: 2003-04-23 17:00:20
Subject: Re: Why is seq search preferred here by planner?
Previous:From: mallahDate: 2003-04-23 16:21:21
Subject: Why is seq search preferred here by planner?

pgsql-general by date

Next:From: Hunter HillegasDate: 2003-04-23 16:46:01
Subject: Re: Left Join Not Using Index?
Previous:From: Jan WeertsDate: 2003-04-23 16:19:52
Subject: Re: another question about connectby from contrib

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2017 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group