From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)dcc(dot)uchile(dot)cl> |
Cc: | Manfred Koizar <mkoi-pg(at)aon(dot)at>, David Blasby <dblasby(at)refractions(dot)net>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: SELECT * FROM <table> LIMIT 1; is really slow |
Date: | 2004-05-28 19:48:11 |
Message-ID: | 5089.1085773691@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)dcc(dot)uchile(dot)cl> writes:
> On Fri, May 28, 2004 at 03:19:29PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
>> We'd still need a plain CommandCounterIncrement facility, which means
>> that actually a subtransaction would have to be a group of CIDs not just
>> one.
> Right, this is why I suggested runlength (the group is contiguous).
Not necessarily.
> Right. We only need to store the "borders" though. Not even that: only
> the start, because the end is what is current at AbortSubTransaction()
> time.
Nope. Think about sub-subtransactions.
A runlength encoding might be worth using, though, since you're right
that subxacts would tend to get runs of consecutive CIDs.
In theory we could also use a runlength representation for the master
bitmap of aborted CIDs, but that would be costly since you would have to
do a search, and not just a trivial index, to check the state of a
particular CID. My inclination would be to stick with a bitmap for now.
It'd be easy enough to revise the implementation later if that gut feel
proves out wrong.
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Magnus Hagander | 2004-05-28 19:50:22 | Re: Win32, PITR, nested transactions, tablespaces |
Previous Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2004-05-28 19:36:15 | Re: SELECT * FROM <table> LIMIT 1; is really slow |