| From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Vitalii Tymchyshyn <tivv00(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Scott Carey <scott(at)richrelevance(dot)com>, Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net>, Scott Marlowe <scott(dot)marlowe(at)gmail(dot)com>, Robert Schnabel <schnabelr(at)missouri(dot)edu>, "david(at)lang(dot)hm" <david(at)lang(dot)hm>, pgsql-performance <pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: How to best use 32 15k.7 300GB drives? |
| Date: | 2011-02-04 18:49:44 |
| Message-ID: | AANLkTiniSfF1tyou7bMX9mXvHF34Vx9YjNoYNS81s7S+@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-performance |
On Fri, Feb 4, 2011 at 4:19 AM, Vitalii Tymchyshyn <tivv00(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> Why do you expect such a invasive code changes? I know little about
> postgresql code layering, but what I propose (with changing delete to
> truncate) is:
> 1) Leave tuple addressing as it is now
i.e. a block number and a slot position within the block?
Seems like you'd need <file,block,slot>.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Scott Marlowe | 2011-02-04 19:01:08 | Re: Really really slow select count(*) |
| Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2011-02-04 18:48:32 | Re: [HACKERS] Slow count(*) again... |