| From: | Vadim Mikheev <vadim(at)krs(dot)ru> |
|---|---|
| To: | Hannu Krosing <hannu(at)trust(dot)ee> |
| Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Don Baccus <dhogaza(at)pacifier(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgreSQL(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: [HACKERS] Priorities for 6.6 |
| Date: | 1999-06-06 12:26:46 |
| Message-ID: | 375A6906.3FBD394F@krs.ru |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Hannu Krosing wrote:
>
> Tom Lane wrote:
> >
> > Don Baccus <dhogaza(at)pacifier(dot)com> writes:
> > > While I don't doubt your analysis is correct for the case you've
> > > uncovered, it doesn't explain why surrounding a bunch of selects
> > > with a begin/end block greatly descreases disk activity for tables
> > > that don't change.
> >
> > Hmm, I'm not sure why that should be, either. Anyone?
>
> >From a recent discussion I remember that every block that is read
> in is marked as dirty, regardless of weather it is modified or not.
No!
Vadim
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Jan Wieck | 1999-06-06 12:27:59 | Re: [HACKERS] PostgreSQL History(Parody) |
| Previous Message | Vadim Mikheev | 1999-06-06 12:25:52 | Re: [HACKERS] Priorities for 6.6 |