From: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Zeugswetter Andreas ADI SD <ZeugswetterA(at)spardat(dot)at> |
Cc: | Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, nagy(at)ecircle-ag(dot)com |
Subject: | Re: CLUSTER and MVCC |
Date: | 2007-03-09 15:48:55 |
Message-ID: | 20070309154855.GB10875@alvh.no-ip.org |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Zeugswetter Andreas ADI SD wrote:
>
> > > Is there a particular reason why CLUSTER isn't MVCC-safe? It seems
> to
> > > me that it would be trivial to fix, by using SnapshotAny instead of
> > > SnapshotNow, and not overwriting the xmin/xmax with the xid of the
> > > cluster command.
> >
> > It's trivial to fix now in this way, but it would break HOT,
> > since an indexscan only returns one row per index entry.
>
> Well, with SnapshotAny HOT should probably return all possibly visible
> tuples
> with an indexscan. (Btw, does CLUSTER really do an index scan ? Seems
> for reading a whole table a seq scan and sort is usually cheaper, at
> least when the clustering is so bad that a CLUSTER is needed.)
Yes, it does an indexscan (last time I checked, at least). I think if a
performance improvement is demonstrated, we would accept a patch ...
--
Alvaro Herrera http://www.CommandPrompt.com/
PostgreSQL Replication, Consulting, Custom Development, 24x7 support
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Heikki Linnakangas | 2007-03-09 15:49:59 | Re: CLUSTER and MVCC |
Previous Message | Heikki Linnakangas | 2007-03-09 15:47:40 | Re: CLUSTER and MVCC |