| From: | NikhilS <nikkhils(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | "Zeugswetter Andreas ADI SD" <ZeugswetterA(at)spardat(dot)at> |
| Cc: | "Simon Riggs" <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, "Tom Lane" <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Frequent Update Project: Design Overview of HOTUpdates |
| Date: | 2006-11-10 19:29:18 |
| Message-ID: | d3c4af540611101129o63c6b1ffnd0fec1056e0214ef@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Hi,
On 11/10/06, Zeugswetter Andreas ADI SD <ZeugswetterA(at)spardat(dot)at> wrote:
>
>
> > > True, but Nikhil has run tests that clearly show HOT outperforming
> > > current situation in the case of long running transactions. The need
>
> > > to optimise HeapTupleSatisfiesVacuum() and avoid long chains does
> > > still remain a difficulty for both HOT and the current situation.
> >
> >
> > Yes, I carried out some pgbench runs comparing our current
> > HOT update patch with PG82BETA2 sources for the long running
> > transaction case. For an apples to apples comparison we got
>
> Vaccuums every 5 minutes, or no vaccuums ?
We tried with both. Vacuum seems to do little to help in a long running
transaction case. Generally in most of the pgbench runs that we carried out,
autovacuum did not seem to be of much help even to PG82.
Regards,
Nikhils
--
EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Simon Riggs | 2006-11-10 20:39:43 | Re: Frequent Update Project: Design Overview ofHOTUpdates |
| Previous Message | NikhilS | 2006-11-10 19:23:27 | Re: Frequent Update Project: Design Overview of HOT Updates |