| From: | Manfred Koizar <mkoi-pg(at)aon(dot)at> |
|---|---|
| To: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)dcc(dot)uchile(dot)cl> |
| Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, David Blasby <dblasby(at)refractions(dot)net>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: SELECT * FROM <table> LIMIT 1; is really slow |
| Date: | 2004-05-28 18:29:51 |
| Message-ID: | 8f0fb0drfn3rl4hj6ercgf98021894444i@email.aon.at |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Thu, 27 May 2004 16:50:24 -0400, Alvaro Herrera
<alvherre(at)dcc(dot)uchile(dot)cl> wrote:
>Now you are on the subject, can I ask you to take a peek at what I did
>regarding tuple headers?
I did read your patch, but I didn't understand it. :-(
>At first I thought I'd have to add back Xmax as a field on its own
Veto! This would increase heap tuple header size ==> less tuples per
page ==> more pages per table ==> more I/O ==> performance loss.
> is there a situation
>on which we should need to peek at Cmin after setting Xmax for a
>particusar tuple?
http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2002-05/msg00090.php
Servus
Manfred
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2004-05-28 18:47:01 | Re: SELECT * FROM <table> LIMIT 1; is really slow |
| Previous Message | Matthew T. O'Connor | 2004-05-28 18:20:32 | pg_autovacuum Integration |