From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | "Pavan Deolasee" <pavan(dot)deolasee(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | "Heikki Linnakangas" <heikki(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: HOT is applied |
Date: | 2007-09-21 15:04:21 |
Message-ID: | 5160.1190387061@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
"Pavan Deolasee" <pavan(dot)deolasee(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> On 9/21/07, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
>>
>> so this example is getting past the heuristic tests in
>> heap_page_prune_opt almost every time. Why is that? Too tired to poke
>> at it more tonight.
>>
> I guess you already know the answer now, but anyways: Since we are
> updating a single tuple in a single transaction, each update is preceded
> by a sequential scan. All but last pages are completely full and marked
> prunable, so HOT would try to (unsuccessfully) prune every (except may
> be last) page.
Hmm ... the problem really is that heap_page_prune turns the hint back
on when it sees a DELETE_IN_PROGRESS tuple. Maybe that's a bad idea.
I don't much like the idea of adding an xid to the page header --- for
one thing, *which* xid would you put there, and what would you test it
against?
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Heikki Linnakangas | 2007-09-21 15:17:50 | Re: HOT is applied |
Previous Message | Heikki Linnakangas | 2007-09-21 15:02:49 | Re: HOT is applied |