| From: | "Pavan Deolasee" <pavan(dot)deolasee(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | "Gokulakannan Somasundaram" <gokul007(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | "Tom Lane" <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, "Heikki Linnakangas" <heikki(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, "PostgreSQL-development Hackers" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Fwd: Clarification about HOT |
| Date: | 2007-11-05 14:46:26 |
| Message-ID: | 2e78013d0711050646s26df5ca9j10f2c070fc76af42@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Nov 5, 2007 8:04 PM, Gokulakannan Somasundaram <gokul007(at)gmail(dot)com>
wrote:
>
>
> There may not be anything called chain-pruning. Instead the tuples, which
> are to be vacuumed, will get vacuumed, after redirecting their index tuple
> peers, during the Vacuum process.
>
>
This won't help us check the heap bloat. Though containing index bloat is
important,
most of the performance benefits of HOT comes from doing page level retail
vacuuming.
This not only reduces the heap bloat but also results in less frequent
vacuuming
of the table.
Thanks,
Pavan
--
Pavan Deolasee
EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Andrew Dunstan | 2007-11-05 15:03:03 | Re: minimal update |
| Previous Message | Heikki Linnakangas | 2007-11-05 14:38:17 | Re: Visibility map thoughts |