| From: | Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Pavan Deolasee <pavan(dot)deolasee(at)gmail(dot)com>, Claudio Freire <klaussfreire(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Heap WARM Tuples - Design Draft |
| Date: | 2016-08-08 16:26:28 |
| Message-ID: | 20160808162628.GB16416@momjian.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Mon, Aug 8, 2016 at 06:34:46PM +0530, Amit Kapila wrote:
> I think here expensive part would be recheck for the cases where the
> index value is changed to a different value (value which doesn't exist
> in WARM chain). You anyway have to add the new entry (key,TID) in
> index, but each time traversing the WARM chain would be an additional
> effort. For cases, where there are just two index entries and one
> them is being updated, it might regress as compare to what we do now.
Yes, I think the all-increment or all-decrement WARM chain is going to
be the right approach.
--
Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> http://momjian.us
EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com
+ As you are, so once was I. As I am, so you will be. +
+ Ancient Roman grave inscription +
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Vik Fearing | 2016-08-08 16:54:52 | Re: No longer possible to query catalogs for index capabilities? |
| Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2016-08-08 15:44:42 | Re: Surprising behaviour of \set AUTOCOMMIT ON |