On Thu, Apr 21, 2005 at 01:06:13AM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> "Jim C. Nasby" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > I'm not sure how different it is from vacuum full, though the main idea
> > is that instead of locking the table you instead work in smaller pieces
> > and don't block anything other than othe
All the issues brought up are why I'm not in favor of trying to do this
outside of the backend.
On Fri, Apr 22, 2005 at 11:29:27AM +0800, Qingqing Zhou wrote:
>
> > > 2) Is it possible to write a where clause that can efficiently hit only
> > > the tuples in the end of the table? If there is a w
> > 2) Is it possible to write a where clause that can efficiently hit only
> > the tuples in the end of the table? If there is a way, then I could
> > test the idea without writing any code at all.
>
> Not sure, but you could try using the ctid column.
>
An alternative is to do a bulky ordered
On Thu, Apr 21, 2005 at 08:53:33PM -0400, Paul Tillotson wrote:
> 1) Does an update always go to the FSM to find out where to put the new
> tuple, or does it first try to put it in the current page, and only read
> the FSM if the current page is already full?
The latter.
> 2) Is it possible to w
Jim C. Nasby wrote:
On Wed, Apr 20, 2005 at 08:10:23PM -0400, Paul Tillotson wrote:
P. S.
The last time I thought about it, I decided that the best solution is
probably one that works just like vacuum full except that it scans the
table in reverse order. It would do something like this:
- Wa
Tom Lane wrote:
"Jim C. Nasby" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
I'm not sure how different it is from vacuum full, though the main idea
is that instead of locking the table you instead work in smaller pieces
and don't block anything other than other updates.
We don't have any support for locking
"Jim C. Nasby" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I'm not sure how different it is from vacuum full, though the main idea
> is that instead of locking the table you instead work in smaller pieces
> and don't block anything other than other updates.
We don't have any support for locking sections of a ta
On Wed, Apr 20, 2005 at 08:10:23PM -0400, Paul Tillotson wrote:
> Jim C. Nasby wrote:
>
> >I talked to a few people on IRC about this and they didn't think I was
> >nuts, so maybe this is something practical...
> >
> >In a nutshell, my idea is to use the normal transactional/XID code to
> >relocat
On Wed, Apr 20, 2005 at 07:33:54PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> "Jim C. Nasby" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > In a nutshell, my idea is to use the normal transactional/XID code to
> > relocate tuples in the heap. Think of doing an UPDATE field=field if you
> > could tell update what page to put the ne
Jim C. Nasby wrote:
I talked to a few people on IRC about this and they didn't think I was
nuts, so maybe this is something practical...
In a nutshell, my idea is to use the normal transactional/XID code to
relocate tuples in the heap. Think of doing an UPDATE field=field if you
could tell update w
"Jim C. Nasby" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> In a nutshell, my idea is to use the normal transactional/XID code to
> relocate tuples in the heap. Think of doing an UPDATE field=field if you
> could tell update what page to put the new tuple on. Using this
> mechanism, you can move tuples from the e
11 matches
Mail list logo
