From: | Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | pgsql-patches(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Page at a time index scan |
Date: | 2006-05-03 14:54:50 |
Message-ID: | 1146668090.449.113.camel@localhost.localdomain |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-patches |
On Wed, 2006-05-03 at 10:17 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> writes:
> You are optimizing the wrong thing here. If we choose not to mark an
> entry dead then we will pay for that omission on every future scan of
> the same entry. I don't think that outweighs the (doubtless rare)
> situation where we expend an extra page fetch to reload the page.
Sounds a familiar conversation, which I shouldn't have raised here.
This depends upon whether the pages being accessed are in cache or not,
and whether we have sufficient I/O to pay the cost of a write. Reads
don't always go to disk, writes always do. I see that its difficult to
tell which is which, but that doesn't mean there aren't different cases.
--
Simon Riggs
EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2006-05-03 14:56:56 | Re: Page at a time index scan |
Previous Message | Simon Riggs | 2006-05-03 14:45:15 | Re: Page at a time index scan |