From: | "Pavan Deolasee" <pavan(dot)deolasee(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | "Tom Lane" <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: count(*) performance improvement ideas |
Date: | 2008-03-12 15:41:28 |
Message-ID: | 2e78013d0803120841x500f0ddco81ae71bda293e9b7@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Wed, Mar 12, 2008 at 9:01 PM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> "Pavan Deolasee" <pavan(dot)deolasee(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> > I am sure this must have been discussed before.
>
> Indeed. Apparently you didn't find the threads in which the idea of
> having transactions enter "delta" entries was discussed? Solves both
> the locking and the MVCC problems, at the cost that you need to make
> cleanup passes over the counter table fairly often.
>
Ok. I would surely look at those threads. Hopefully HOT will considerably
solve the counter table cleanup issue.
> I don't see this as material for the core DB but it would make a great
> contrib module.
>
I guess we will need some backend hooks to make it really work, no ?
At the minimum we need to track the "deltas" at the transaction level
and the ability to do some extra processing at the commit time.
May be I should first read those threads and I will find the answers.
Thanks,
Pavan
--
Pavan Deolasee
EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Magnus Hagander | 2008-03-12 15:43:21 | Re: TODO-list on wiki (was: TODO update about SQLSTATE to PGconn) |
Previous Message | Bruce Momjian | 2008-03-12 15:39:38 | Re: TODO-list on wiki (was: TODO update about SQLSTATE to PGconn) |