Re: Multiple FPI_FOR_HINT for the same block during killing btreeindex items
От | James Coleman |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Multiple FPI_FOR_HINT for the same block during killing btreeindex items |
Дата | |
Msg-id | CAAaqYe8Lt+udOASNpyuQoXMKo8Prg7Rcyc2mCK5NYteLF4CHBw@mail.gmail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: Multiple FPI_FOR_HINT for the same block during killing btreeindex items (Peter Geoghegan <pg@bowt.ie>) |
Ответы |
Re: Multiple FPI_FOR_HINT for the same block during killing btreeindex items
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
On Thu, Apr 9, 2020 at 8:32 PM Peter Geoghegan <pg@bowt.ie> wrote: > > On Thu, Apr 9, 2020 at 5:25 PM Peter Geoghegan <pg@bowt.ie> wrote: > > Was this a low cardinality index in the way I describe? If it was, > > then we can hope (and maybe even verify) that the Postgres 12 work > > noticeably ameliorates the problem. > > What I really meant was an index where hundreds or even thousands of > rows for each distinct timestamp value are expected. Not an index > where almost every row has a distinct timestamp value. Both timestamp > index patterns are common, obviously. I'll try to run some numbers tomorrow to confirm, but I believe that the created_at value is almost (if not completely) unique. So, no, it's not a low cardinality case like that. I believe the write pattern to this table likely looks like: - INSERT - UPDATE - DELETE for every row. But tomorrow I can do some more digging if needed. James
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: