| From: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Martijn van Oosterhout <kleptog(at)svana(dot)org>, Hannu Krosing <hannu(at)skype(dot)net>, Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Greg Stark <gsstark(at)mit(dot)edu>, PFC <lists(at)peufeu(dot)com> |
| Subject: | Longer startup delay (was Re: Single Index Tuple Chain (SITC) method) |
| Date: | 2006-06-29 17:08:33 |
| Message-ID: | 20060629170833.GA7756@surnet.cl |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Tom Lane wrote:
> Another issue is that this would replace a simple hint-bit setting with
> an index change that requires a WAL entry. There'll be more WAL traffic
> altogether from backends retail-deleting index tuples than there would
> be from VACUUM cleaning the whole page at once
Speaking of which, I think I've noticed a longer delay in server start
after initdb. I haven't measured nor profiled it, but I think it may be
because of the heap_inplace_update xlogging that we weren't doing
previously.
--
Alvaro Herrera http://www.CommandPrompt.com/
The PostgreSQL Company - Command Prompt, Inc.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Martijn van Oosterhout | 2006-06-29 17:33:50 | Re: Single Index Tuple Chain (SITC) method |
| Previous Message | Hannu Krosing | 2006-06-29 16:59:26 | Re: Single Index Tuple Chain (SITC) method |