From: | Koichi Suzuki <suzuki(dot)koichi(at)oss(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp> |
---|---|
To: | Mark Woodward <pgsql(at)mohawksoft(dot)com> |
Cc: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: How to avoid transaction ID wrap |
Date: | 2006-06-07 04:15:56 |
Message-ID: | 448652FC.5030908@oss.ntt.co.jp |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
I've once proposed a patch for 64bit transaction ID, but this causes
some overhead to each tuple (XMIN and XMAX). Pgbench with 64bit
transaction ID has to pay about a couple of percent of performance. If
64bit transaction ID is a reasonable fix, I've already posted this
patch. Anyone can apply this to later versions.
Mark Woodward wrote:
>> Mark Woodward wrote:
>>> OK, here's my problem, I have a nature study where we have about 10
>>> video
>>> cameras taking 15 frames per second.
>>> For each frame we make a few transactions on a PostgreSQL database.
>> Maybe if you grouped multiple operations on bigger transactions, the I/O
>> savings could be enough to buy you the ability to vacuum once in a
>> while. Or consider buffering somehow -- save the data elsewhere, and
>> have some sort of daemon to put it into the database. This would allow
>> to cope with the I/O increase during vacuum.
>
> The problem is ssufficiently large that any minor modification can easily
> hide the problem for a predictble amount of time. My hope was that someone
> would have a real "long term" work around.
>
> ---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
> TIP 9: In versions below 8.0, the planner will ignore your desire to
> choose an index scan if your joining column's datatypes do not
> match
>
--
Koichi Suzuki
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Greg Stark | 2006-06-07 05:11:08 | Re: DROP INHERITS |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2006-06-07 03:46:54 | Re: DROP INHERITS |