| From: | Don Baccus <dhogaza(at)pacifier(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Hiroshi Inoue <Inoue(at)tpf(dot)co(dot)jp>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us>, "Mikheev, Vadim" <vmikheev(at)SECTORBASE(dot)COM>, "'Zeugswetter Andreas SB'" <ZeugswetterA(at)wien(dot)spardat(dot)at>, The Hermit Hacker <scrappy(at)hub(dot)org>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Plans for solving the VACUUM problem |
| Date: | 2001-05-23 23:24:48 |
| Message-ID: | 3.0.1.32.20010523162448.01797330@mail.pacifier.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
At 08:15 AM 5/24/01 +0900, Hiroshi Inoue wrote:
>> Unless we want to abandon MVCC (which I don't), I think an overwriting
>> smgr is impractical.
>
>Impractical ? Oracle does it.
It's not easy, though ... the current PG scheme has the advantage of being
relatively simple and probably more efficient than scanning logs like
Oracle has to do (assuming your datafiles aren't thoroughly clogged with
old dead tuples).
Has anyone looked at InterBase for hints for space-reusing strategies?
As I understand it, they have a tuple-versioning scheme similar to PG's.
If nothing else, something might be learned as to the efficiency and
effectiveness of one particular approach to solving the problem.
- Don Baccus, Portland OR <dhogaza(at)pacifier(dot)com>
Nature photos, on-line guides, Pacific Northwest
Rare Bird Alert Service and other goodies at
http://donb.photo.net.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Michael Samuel | 2001-05-23 23:25:09 | Re: Fix for tablename in targetlist |
| Previous Message | Hiroshi Inoue | 2001-05-23 23:15:06 | Re: Plans for solving the VACUUM problem |