From: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Martin Pihlak <martin(dot)pihlak(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com>, Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: reducing statistics write overhead |
Date: | 2009-01-21 20:17:02 |
Message-ID: | 20090121201702.GO4038@alvh.no-ip.org |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Martin Pihlak escribió:
> Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> > I agree that pgstats is not ideal (we've said this from the very
> > beginning), but I doubt that updating pg_class is the answer; you'd be
> > generating thousands of dead tuples there.
>
> But we already do update pg_class after vacuum -- in vac_update_relstats().
> Hmm, that performs a heap_inplace_update() ... I assume that this is cheap,
> but have no idea as if it is suitable for the purpouse.
Oh, sorry, I thought you were suggesting to use pg_class to store number
of tuples dead/alive/etc.
I had a patch to introduce a new type of table, which would only be used
for non-transactional updates. That would allow what you're proposing.
I think we discussed something similar to what you propose and rejected
it for some reason I can't recall offhand. Search the archives for
pg_class_nt and pg_ntclass, that might give you some ideas.
--
Alvaro Herrera http://www.CommandPrompt.com/
PostgreSQL Replication, Consulting, Custom Development, 24x7 support
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Bruce Momjian | 2009-01-21 20:22:03 | Re: Cancelling idle in transaction state |
Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2009-01-21 20:10:10 | Re: FWD: Re: Updated backslash consistency patch |