| From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Pavan Deolasee <pavan(dot)deolasee(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>, Jaime Casanova <jaime(dot)casanova(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Haribabu Kommi <kommi(dot)haribabu(at)gmail(dot)com>, Tomas Vondra <tomas(dot)vondra(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Patch: Write Amplification Reduction Method (WARM) |
| Date: | 2017-03-16 12:53:36 |
| Message-ID: | CA+TgmobLOGghKaTNcH=gFTUsHX79k3aUzXb8dUr5ex1O+42_Fw@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Wed, Mar 15, 2017 at 3:44 PM, Pavan Deolasee
<pavan(dot)deolasee(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> I couldn't find a better way without a lot of complex infrastructure. Even
> though we now have ability to mark index pointers and we know that a given
> pointer either points to the pre-WARM chain or post-WARM chain, this does
> not solve the case when an index does not receive a new entry. In that case,
> both pre-WARM and post-WARM tuples are reachable via the same old index
> pointer. The only way we could deal with this is to mark index pointers as
> "common", "pre-warm" and "post-warm". But that would require us to update
> the old pointer's state from "common" to "pre-warm" for the index whose keys
> are being updated. May be it's doable, but might be more complex than the
> current approach.
/me scratches head.
Aren't pre-warm and post-warm just (better) names for blue and red?
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Robert Haas | 2017-03-16 13:16:25 | Re: Partitioned tables and relfilenode |
| Previous Message | David Rowley | 2017-03-16 12:51:43 | Re: multivariate statistics (v25) |