Re: Frequent Update Project: Design Overview of HOTUpdates
От | Heikki Linnakangas |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Frequent Update Project: Design Overview of HOTUpdates |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 4554715A.7070905@enterprisedb.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: Frequent Update Project: Design Overview of HOTUpdates ("Simon Riggs" <simon@2ndquadrant.com>) |
Список | pgsql-hackers |
Simon Riggs wrote: > On Thu, 2006-11-09 at 18:28 -0500, Tom Lane wrote: >> "Simon Riggs" <simon@2ndquadrant.com> writes: >>> HOT can only work in cases where a tuple does not modify one of the >>> columns defined in an index on the table, and when we do not alter the >>> row length of the tuple. >> Seems like "altering the row length" isn't the issue, it's just "is >> there room on the page for the new version". Again, a generous >> fillfactor would give you more flexibility. > > The copy-back operation can only work if the tuple fits in the same > space as the root tuple. If it doesn't you end up with a tuple > permanently in the overflow relation. That might not worry us, I guess. > > Also, my understanding was that an overwrite operation could not vary > the length of a tuple (at least according to code comments). You can't If someone else has the page pinned, > >>> [We'll be able to do that more efficiently when >>> we have plan invalidation] >> Uh, what's that got to do with it? > > Currently the HOT code dynamically tests to see if the index columns > have been touched. If we had plan invalidation that would be able to be > assessed more easily at planning time, in cases where there is no BEFORE > trigger. > -- Heikki Linnakangas EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: