Re: Improving the Performance of Full Table Updates

From: "Heikki Linnakangas" <heikki(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>
To: "Gokulakannan Somsundaram" <gokul007(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Improving the Performance of Full Table Updates
Date: 2007-09-20 07:20:06
Message-ID: 46F21F26.7030407@enterprisedb.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Gokulakannan Somsundaram wrote:
> Hi,
> The Current architecture of Updates in PostgreSQL is
> 1) Make a select query out of update. It involves a READ lock/BUFFER_SHARE
> 2) Get the tupleid
> 3) Goto the buffer containing the tupleid, make a BUFFER_EXCLUSIVE lock on
> it
> 4) update it
> 5) Repeat the above process for subsequent rows
>
> I propose to change this row-by-row approach, when it is a full table
> update. I plan to send a extra flag(which will be set for Full table
> Deletes/Updates). this would make the access method directly acquire the
> exclusive lock and update the existing record.
>
> For Deletes this is simple. But for updates, the projection tuple has to be
> made before re-inserting it. So there will be a list of Heap tuples stored
> in memory for each page getting updated. these tuples will be inserted after
> the deletion part of update is done. This is just a rough design. I may get
> involved in a detail design once i get a nod from the mailing list
> community.

I doubt the locking overhead is that significant. Have you done any
profiling to show that it's worth it?

--
Heikki Linnakangas
EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Gokulakannan Somsundaram 2007-09-20 08:00:19 Re: Improving the Performance of Full Table Updates
Previous Message Gokulakannan Somsundaram 2007-09-20 07:11:20 Improving the Performance of Full Table Updates