| From: | Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(dot)linnakangas(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Kevin Grittner <Kevin(dot)Grittner(at)wicourts(dot)gov>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: SSI performance |
| Date: | 2011-02-04 16:07:41 |
| Message-ID: | 4D4C244D.7010107@enterprisedb.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 04.02.2011 15:37, Robert Haas wrote:
> Not sure. How much benefit do we get from upgrading tuple locks to
> page locks? Should we just upgrade from tuple locks to full-relation
> locks?
Hmm, good question. Page-locks are the coarsest level for the b-tree
locks, but maybe that would make sense for the heap.
> It also seems like there might be some benefit to caching the
> knowledge that we have a full-relation lock somewhere, so that once we
> get one we needn't keep checking that. Not sure if that actually
> makes sense...
Well, if you reverse the order of the hash table lookups, that's
effectively what you get.
--
Heikki Linnakangas
EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Robert Haas | 2011-02-04 16:16:29 | Re: Re: patch: fix performance problems with repated decomprimation of varlena values in plpgsql |
| Previous Message | Scott Marlowe | 2011-02-04 16:05:32 | Re: [HACKERS] Slow count(*) again... |