Added to TODO: * Reduce XID consumption of read-only queries
http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2007-08/msg00516.php --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Florian G. Pflug wrote: > Tom Lane wrote: > > Bruce Momjian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > >> Is enlarging the xid field something we should consider for 8.4? > > > > No. We just got the tuple header down to 24 bytes, we are not going > > to give that back and then some. > > > > If you are processing 6K transactions per second, you can afford to > > vacuum every couple days... and probably need to vacuum much more often > > than that anyway, to avoid table bloat. > > > > Possibly your respondent should think about trying to do more than one > > thing per transaction? > > I'm wondering how many of those 6k xacts/second are actually modifying > data. If a large percentage of those are readonly queries, than the need > for vacuuming could be reduced if postgres assigned an xid only if that > xid really hits the disk. Otherwise (for purely select-type queries) it > could use some special xid value. > > This is what I'm doing in my Readonly-Queries-On-PITR-Slave patch. > > greetings, Florian Pflug -- Bruce Momjian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com + If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. + ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 9: In versions below 8.0, the planner will ignore your desire to choose an index scan if your joining column's datatypes do not match
