| From: | Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Csaba Nagy <nagy(at)ecircle-ag(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com>, Gregory Stark <stark(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, postgres hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: CLUSTER and MVCC |
| Date: | 2007-03-09 15:10:25 |
| Message-ID: | 45F178E1.9080204@enterprisedb.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Csaba Nagy wrote:
> On Fri, 2007-03-09 at 14:00, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
>> But I'm not really seeing the problem here. Why isn't Csaba's problem
>> fixed by the fact that HOT reduces the number of dead tuples in the
>> first place? If it does, then he no longer needs the CLUSTER
>> workaround, or at least, he needs it to a much lesser extent.
>
> Is this actually true in the case of HOT + long running transactions ? I
> was supposing HOT has the same problems in the presence of long running
> transactions...
It does, HOT won't help you here. A long-running transaction is just as
much of a problem with HOT as without. Besides, I don't recall that
you're doing updates in the first place.
--
Heikki Linnakangas
EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Bruno Wolff III | 2007-03-09 15:20:28 | Re: who gets paid for this |
| Previous Message | Martijn van Oosterhout | 2007-03-09 15:01:47 | Re: Estimating seq_page_fetch and random_page_fetch |