Re: Multiple FPI_FOR_HINT for the same block during killing btree index items

From: James Coleman <jtc331(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)bowt(dot)ie>
Cc: Masahiko Sawada <masahiko(dot)sawada(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Álvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>
Subject: Re: Multiple FPI_FOR_HINT for the same block during killing btree index items
Date: 2020-04-10 13:18:38
Message-ID: CAAaqYe8ku-_Hj6SP=S9FWKEbb+Kj6BGWKT2d=fr_FW8Jx62RDA@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Thu, Apr 9, 2020 at 10:08 PM Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)bowt(dot)ie> wrote:
>
> On Thu, Apr 9, 2020 at 6:47 PM James Coleman <jtc331(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> > I believe the write pattern to this table likely looks like:
> > - INSERT
> > - UPDATE
> > - DELETE
> > for every row. But tomorrow I can do some more digging if needed.
>
> The pg_stats.null_frac for the column/index might be interesting here. I
> believe that Active Record will sometimes generate created_at columns
> that sometimes end up containing NULL values. Not sure why.

null_frac is 0 for created_at (what I expected). Also (under current
data) all created_at values are unique except a single row duplicate.

That being said, remember the write pattern above: every row gets
deleted eventually, so there'd be a lots of dead tuples overall.

James

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Jeremy Morton 2020-04-10 13:19:09 Re: Support for DATETIMEOFFSET
Previous Message Robert Haas 2020-04-10 13:01:47 Re: Improve heavyweight locks instead of building new lock managers?