From: | Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Jesper Krogh <jesper(at)krogh(dot)cc> |
Cc: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: crash-safe visibility map, take four |
Date: | 2011-03-24 22:05:12 |
Message-ID: | AANLkTi=nfHFf4VR-gSMNxaVwPzEJGwCGHZYxNW20ocoL@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Wed, Mar 23, 2011 at 6:16 AM, Jesper Krogh <jesper(at)krogh(dot)cc> wrote:
> On 2011-03-22 21:43, Robert Haas wrote:
>>
>> I took a crack at implementing the first approach described above,
>> which seems to be by far the simplest idea we've come up with to date.
>> Patch attached. It doesn't seem to be that complicated, which could
>> mean either that it's not that complicated or that I'm missing
>> something. Feel free to point and snicker in the latter case.
>
> Looks simple, but there is now benefit...
Your tests and discussion remind me that I haven't yet seen any tests
that show that index-only scans would be useful for performance.
Everyone just seems to be assuming that they make a huge difference,
and that the difference is practically realisable in a common
workload.
Perhaps that's already been done and I just didn't notice?
--
Simon Riggs http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Stephen Frost | 2011-03-24 22:15:25 | Re: Pre-set Hint bits/VACUUM FREEZE on data load..? |
Previous Message | Radosław Smogura | 2011-03-24 21:59:41 | Re: 2nd Level Buffer Cache |