From: | Satoshi Nagayasu <nagayasus(at)nttdata(dot)co(dot)jp> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Pre-allocated free space for row updating (like PCTFREE) |
Date: | 2005-08-22 02:40:42 |
Message-ID: | 43093B2A.9050507@nttdata.co.jp |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Tom Lane wrote:
> I'm not very enthused about this. Enforcing 12.5% PCTFREE means that
> you pay 12.5% extra I/O costs across the board for INSERT and SELECT
> and then hope you can make it back (plus some more) on UPDATEs.
> pgbench is a completely UPDATE-dominated benchmark and thus it makes
> such a patch look much better than it would on other workloads.
Yes. I'm thinking about update-intensive workload or batch jobs
which generate huge amounts of updates.
I know pgbench is just a update-intensive benchmark, however
I don't like updates cause many smgrextend() and performance down,
because there are many workload types in the real-world.
I believe some of us need more options for these types of workloads.
(And I also know we need more tricks on page repair.)
> I think the reason Oracle offers this has to do with their
> overwrite-based storage management; it's not obvious that the tradeoff
> is as useful for us. There are some relevant threads in our archives
> here, here, and here:
I think the reason why this topic is raised many times is
some people need this.
The important point is that we need several options
for own workloads (or access patterns).
--
NAGAYASU Satoshi <nagayasus(at)nttdata(dot)co(dot)jp>
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Michael Fuhr | 2005-08-22 04:40:14 | Re: Sleep functions |
Previous Message | Bruce Momjian | 2005-08-22 02:22:49 | Re: [pgsql-www] New web page for release status |