From: | PFC <lists(at)peufeu(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | "Bruce Momjian" <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> |
Cc: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: vacuum, performance, and MVCC, and compression |
Date: | 2006-06-26 15:55:08 |
Message-ID: | op.tbrft6k7cigqcu@apollo13 |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
> What about increasing the size of an existing index entry? Can that be
> done easily when a new row is added?
I'd say it looks pretty much like inserting a new index tuple...
Say "value" is the indexed column.
Find first page in the index featuring "value".
1 If there is space on the page,
add the tuple id to the list of the corresponding index entry (just like
creating a new index tuple, but uses less space).
else
look at next page.
If next page has an index tuple with the same indexed value,
goto 1
else
insert new page and create an index tuple on it
> I would be worried about the overhead of doing that on compression and
> decompression.
The compression methods mentioned in the article which was passed on the
list seemed pretty fast. From IO-limited, the test database became
CPU-limited (and a lot faster).
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Zeugswetter Andreas DCP SD | 2006-06-26 16:06:00 | Re: vacuum, performance, and MVCC |
Previous Message | Dave Page | 2006-06-26 15:45:58 | Re: Anyone still care about Cygwin? (was Re: [CORE] GPL |