Re: Page at a time index scan

From: Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: pgsql-patches(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Page at a time index scan
Date: 2006-05-03 14:54:50
Message-ID: 1146668090.449.113.camel@localhost.localdomain
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-patches

On Wed, 2006-05-03 at 10:17 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> writes:

> You are optimizing the wrong thing here. If we choose not to mark an
> entry dead then we will pay for that omission on every future scan of
> the same entry. I don't think that outweighs the (doubtless rare)
> situation where we expend an extra page fetch to reload the page.

Sounds a familiar conversation, which I shouldn't have raised here.

This depends upon whether the pages being accessed are in cache or not,
and whether we have sufficient I/O to pay the cost of a write. Reads
don't always go to disk, writes always do. I see that its difficult to
tell which is which, but that doesn't mean there aren't different cases.

--
Simon Riggs
EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com

In response to

Browse pgsql-patches by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2006-05-03 14:56:56 Re: Page at a time index scan
Previous Message Simon Riggs 2006-05-03 14:45:15 Re: Page at a time index scan