| From: | "Merlin Moncure" <mmoncure(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | depesz(at)depesz(dot)com |
| Cc: | pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: visibility map - what do i miss? |
| Date: | 2008-12-06 16:00:45 |
| Message-ID: | b42b73150812060800p55234da5qdca6a4ce37814b8c@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-general |
On Sat, Dec 6, 2008 at 8:38 AM, Merlin Moncure <mmoncure(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> So what do we gather from this? Well, the feature works as
> advertised. I think that as long as your updates are not uniformly
> distributed across pages, vismap is a huge performance win for many
> workloads. I think the benefit will increase as the feature is
> tweaked in future versions. vacuum times are one of the things that
> make dealing with large tables difficult, and force us to use
> partitioning (which is, frankly, a hack).
>
> Why are new pages initialized dirty? Do inserts on pages set the dirty bit?
dumb question...there is no guarantee the transaction will be committed.
merlin
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Sebastian Tennant | 2008-12-06 16:02:40 | Re: Resp.: Automatic insert statement generator? |
| Previous Message | Merlin Moncure | 2008-12-06 15:36:01 | Re: Unique constaint violated without being violated |