Re: Performance Improvement for Unique Indexes
От | Tom Lane |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Performance Improvement for Unique Indexes |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 21102.1269441582@sss.pgh.pa.us обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Performance Improvement for Unique Indexes (Gokulakannan Somasundaram <gokul007@gmail.com>) |
Ответы |
Re: Performance Improvement for Unique Indexes
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
Gokulakannan Somasundaram <gokul007@gmail.com> writes: > While i was studying the unique index checks very closely, i realized > that what we need is to find out whether the tuple is deleted / not. So say > a tuple is deleted by a transaction, but it is not dead( because of some > long running transaction ), still we can mark a hint bit as deleted and it > will help the subsequent transactions doing the unique checks. As a matter > of fact, it will help the deferred_unique cases, since it will anyway check > the tuples twice, if there is a duplicate. It seems fairly unlikely to me that this would be useful enough to justify using up a precious hint bit. The applicability of the hint is very short-term --- as soon as the tuple is dead to all transactions, it can be marked with the existing LP_DEAD hint bit. And if it's only useful for uniqueness checks, as seems to be the case, that's another big restriction on the value. regards, tom lane
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: