Re: crash-safe visibility map, take four

From: Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com>
To: Jesper Krogh <jesper(at)krogh(dot)cc>
Cc: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: crash-safe visibility map, take four
Date: 2011-03-24 22:05:12
Message-ID: AANLkTi=nfHFf4VR-gSMNxaVwPzEJGwCGHZYxNW20ocoL@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Wed, Mar 23, 2011 at 6:16 AM, Jesper Krogh <jesper(at)krogh(dot)cc> wrote:
> On 2011-03-22 21:43, Robert Haas wrote:
>>
>> I took a crack at implementing the first approach described above,
>> which seems to be by far the simplest idea we've come up with to date.
>>  Patch attached.  It doesn't seem to be that complicated, which could
>> mean either that it's not that complicated or that I'm missing
>> something.  Feel free to point and snicker in the latter case.
>
> Looks simple, but there is now benefit...

Your tests and discussion remind me that I haven't yet seen any tests
that show that index-only scans would be useful for performance.

Everyone just seems to be assuming that they make a huge difference,
and that the difference is practically realisable in a common
workload.

Perhaps that's already been done and I just didn't notice?

--
 Simon Riggs                   http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
 PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Stephen Frost 2011-03-24 22:15:25 Re: Pre-set Hint bits/VACUUM FREEZE on data load..?
Previous Message Radosław Smogura 2011-03-24 21:59:41 Re: 2nd Level Buffer Cache