From: | Bruce Momjian <maillist(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | The Hermit Hacker <scrappy(at)hub(dot)org> |
Cc: | Oleg Bartunov <oleg(at)sai(dot)msu(dot)su>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgreSQL(dot)org, tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us, vadim(at)krs(dot)ru |
Subject: | Re: [HACKERS] row reuse while UPDATE and vacuum analyze problem |
Date: | 1999-07-28 15:45:23 |
Message-ID: | 199907281545.LAA11113@candle.pha.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
> On Wed, 28 Jul 1999, Oleg Bartunov wrote:
>
> > How update performance could be increased if:
> > 1. 'vacuum analyze' will analyze index file
> > 2. reuse row instead of inserting
>
> Just to clarify, 'reuse row' won't replace inserting (to the best of my
> knowledge), only reduce space wastage between vacuum's. Especially, again
> TTBOMK, with MVCC, where each "instance" of a row is serialized.
>
> Actually, there is a tought...if I understand the concept of MVCC, how is
> reusing a row going to work? My understanding is that I can "physically"
> have to copies of a row in a table, one newer then the other. So, if
> someone is running a SELECT while I'm doing an UPDATE, their SELECT will
> take the older version of hte row (the row at the time their SELECT
> started)...depending on how busy that table is, there will have to be some
> sort of mechanism for determining how 'stale' a row is, no?
>
> ie. on a *very* large table, with multiple SELECT/UPDATEs happening?
You would have to leave referenced rows alone. I think Vadim has this
covered.
--
Bruce Momjian | http://www.op.net/~candle
maillist(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us | (610) 853-3000
+ If your life is a hard drive, | 830 Blythe Avenue
+ Christ can be your backup. | Drexel Hill, Pennsylvania 19026
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Zeugswetter Andreas IZ5 | 1999-07-28 15:45:32 | Re: Selectivity of "=" (Re: [HACKERS] Index not used on simple se lect) |
Previous Message | Bruce Momjian | 1999-07-28 15:43:42 | Re: Selectivity of "=" (Re: [HACKERS] Index not used on simple se lect) |