From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Janardhan <jana-reddy(at)mediaring(dot)com(dot)sg> |
Cc: | PostgresSQL Hackers Mailing List <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Reusing Dead Tuples: |
Date: | 2002-12-13 07:37:21 |
Message-ID: | 5876.1039765041@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Janardhan <jana-reddy(at)mediaring(dot)com(dot)sg> writes:
> Does it breaks any other things if all the index entries pointing the
> dead tuple are removed before reusing the dead tuple?.
Possibly you could make that work, but I think you'll find the
efficiency advantage you were chasing to be totally gone. The locking
scheme is heavily biased against you, and the index AMs don't offer an
API designed for efficient retail index-tuple deletion.
Of course that just says that you're swimming against the tide of
previous optimization efforts. But the thing you need to face up to
is you are taking what had been background maintenance tasks (viz,
VACUUM) and moving them into the foreground critical path. This *will*
slow down your foreground applications.
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2002-12-13 07:56:38 | Re: Creating a zero-column table |
Previous Message | Philip Warner | 2002-12-13 07:31:38 | Re: Creating a zero-column table |