From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Kevin Grittner <Kevin(dot)Grittner(at)wicourts(dot)gov> |
Cc: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Subject: | Re: limiting hint bit I/O |
Date: | 2011-01-14 18:41:24 |
Message-ID: | AANLkTim0T=oDKTNdj8sscQtca04uyfJyQd8NdBa9hvf4@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Fri, Jan 14, 2011 at 1:34 PM, Kevin Grittner
<Kevin(dot)Grittner(at)wicourts(dot)gov> wrote:
> Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>
>> I'm hoping some will pick it up and play with it some more (hint,
>> hint).
>
> That was a bit of a pun, eh?
Unintentional...
> Anyway, there are so many ideas in this area, it's hard to keep them
> all straight. Personally, if I was going to start with something,
> it would probably be to better establish what the impact is on
> various workloads of *eliminating* hint bits. If the impact is
> negative to a significant degree, my next step might be to try
> background *freezing* of tuples (in a manner somewhat similar to
> what you've done in this test) with the hint bits gone.
Background freezing plays havoc with Hot Standby, and this test is
sufficient to show that eliminating hint bits altogether would a
significant regression on some workloads. I don't think either of
those ideas can get off the ground.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2011-01-14 18:42:09 | Re: limiting hint bit I/O |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2011-01-14 18:35:12 | Re: [PATCH] Return command tag 'REPLACE X' for CREATE OR REPLACE statements. |