On 11/5/07, Martijn van Oosterhout <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On Mon, Nov 05, 2007 at 09:32:08PM +0530, Gokulakannan Somasundaram wrote:
> > Say, if we have a table with 4 indexes and updates occur in such
> intervals,
> > we may not be able to find space in the same page for the update.
> Curr
On Mon, Nov 05, 2007 at 09:32:08PM +0530, Gokulakannan Somasundaram wrote:
> Say, if we have a table with 4 indexes and updates occur in such intervals,
> we may not be able to find space in the same page for the update. Currently
> we are incurring the overhead of updating all the indexes in this
On 11/5/07, Heikki Linnakangas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Gokulakannan Somasundaram wrote:
> > Thanks Heikki. To clarify, there won't be any redirect-line pointers in
> this
> > implementation. That space is saved. We will have the index tuple point
> to
> > the latest live tuple in the update
Gokulakannan Somasundaram wrote:
Thanks Heikki. To clarify, there won't be any redirect-line pointers in this
implementation. That space is saved. We will have the index tuple point to
the latest live tuple in the update chain. So no need for redirect-line
pointers.
The redirected line pointer
Thanks Heikki. To clarify, there won't be any redirect-line pointers in this
implementation. That space is saved. We will have the index tuple point to
the latest live tuple in the update chain. So no need for redirect-line
pointers.
Thanks,
Gokul.
On 11/5/07, Heikki Linnakangas <[EMAIL PROTECTE
On 11/5/07, Pavan Deolasee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
>
> On Nov 5, 2007 8:04 PM, Gokulakannan Somasundaram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > There may not be anything called chain-pruning. Instead the tuples,
> > which are to be vacuumed, will get vacuumed, after redirecting their ind
Gokulakannan Somasundaram wrote:
There's also the little problem that a redirect line pointer doesn't
have room for a cross-page link,
i don't know, what is a re-direct line pointer.
Then you clearly don't understand at all how HOT works. Please go read
src/backend/access/heap/README.HOT.
On 11/5/07, Tom Lane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> "Gokulakannan Somasundaram" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > Currently, during Vacuum, we goto the Index and mark it as dead and
> > reclaim the space. For doing this, we are acquiring a Super-Exclusive
> lock.
> > After this implementation, we
On Nov 5, 2007 8:04 PM, Gokulakannan Somasundaram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>
>
> There may not be anything called chain-pruning. Instead the tuples, which
> are to be vacuumed, will get vacuumed, after redirecting their index tuple
> peers, during the Vacuum process.
>
>
This won't help us chec
"Gokulakannan Somasundaram" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Currently, during Vacuum, we goto the Index and mark it as dead and
> reclaim the space. For doing this, we are acquiring a Super-Exclusive lock.
> After this implementation, we would update the index tuple instead of
> marking it for cle
Thanks for the feedback. Let me try to put what is there in my mind for
this. Please clarify whether my assumptions are valid
On 11/5/07, Pavan Deolasee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
>
> On Nov 5, 2007 7:37 PM, Gokulakannan Somasundaram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
>
> > Tom,
> >Let me tr
On Nov 5, 2007 7:37 PM, Gokulakannan Somasundaram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> Tom,
>Let me try to understand your statement.
>
> What extra multi-page operations are we doing?
> Currently, during Vacuum, we goto the Index and mark it as dead and
> reclaim the space. For doing this, we
Tom,
Let me try to understand your statement.
What extra multi-page operations are we doing?
Currently, during Vacuum, we goto the Index and mark it as dead and
reclaim the space. For doing this, we are acquiring a Super-Exclusive lock.
After this implementation, we would update the inde
"Gokulakannan Somasundaram" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> May be i am missing something in the big picture. Please clarify me on that.
Locking. Your proposal involves lots of multi-page operations, which
are best avoided.
Moreover, you have offered no data to suggest that there would be any
real
Again Forgot to include the group...
-- Forwarded message --
From: Gokulakannan Somasundaram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Nov 5, 2007 5:09 PM
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Fwd: Clarification about HOT
To: Heikki Linnakangas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
On 11/5/07, Heikki Linnaka
Gokulakannan Somasundaram wrote:
b) Whenever we Vacuum the index, we take a list of tids and check
whether
there are any index tuples pointing to it. If the Vacuumed tuple is a
start
of the HOT chain, then we will carry the next in-line HOT tuple when we
goto
Vacuum the index. If the next i
>
> > b) Whenever we Vacuum the index, we take a list of tids and check
> whether
> > there are any index tuples pointing to it. If the Vacuumed tuple is a
> start
> > of the HOT chain, then we will carry the next in-line HOT tuple when we
> goto
> > Vacuum the index. If the next in-line also satis
Gokulakannan Somasundaram wrote:
On 11/5/07, Heikki Linnakangas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
AFAICS, pointer-swinging would be exactly the same on cross-page HOT
chains as same-page chains.
When i read pointer-swinging, it talks a lot about in-page updates, pointing
to the latest tuple instead o
On 11/5/07, Heikki Linnakangas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Gokulakannan Somasundaram wrote:
> > I think pointer swinging is still about maintaining the HOT chain within
> a
> > page. Actually i am thinking about continuing the HOT chain across
> pages.
>
> AFAICS, pointer-swinging would be exact
Gokulakannan Somasundaram wrote:
I think pointer swinging is still about maintaining the HOT chain within a
page. Actually i am thinking about continuing the HOT chain across pages.
AFAICS, pointer-swinging would be exactly the same on cross-page HOT
chains as same-page chains.
--
Heikki L
On 11/5/07, Heikki Linnakangas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Gokulakannan Somasundaram wrote:
> > Thanks for all the inputs. My question would be if we decide to update
> the
> > top of the HOT chain in the Index itself. Right now we are carrying a
> list
> > of tuple-ids to be vacuumed, when we v
Gokulakannan Somasundaram wrote:
Thanks for all the inputs. My question would be if we decide to update the
top of the HOT chain in the Index itself. Right now we are carrying a list
of tuple-ids to be vacuumed, when we vacuum the index. Say we carry another
list (or through some better mechanism
Forgot to include the group...
-- Forwarded message --
From: Gokulakannan Somasundaram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Nov 5, 2007 3:04 PM
Subject: Re: Clarification about HOT
To: Gregory Stark <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
On 11/2/07, Gregory Stark <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
> "Gokulakan
23 matches
Mail list logo
