FAQ

On 25 June 2013 00:51, Bruce Momjian wrote:
On Sat, Jun 15, 2013 at 11:39:23AM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
Simon Riggs <simon@2ndquadrant.com> writes:
On 15 June 2013 00:01, Josh Berkus wrote:
If we're going to start adding reloptions for specific table behavior,
I'd rather think of all of the optimizations we might have for a
prospective "append-only table" and bundle those, rather than tying it
to whether a certain index exists or not.
I agree that the FSM behaviour shouldn't be linked to index existence.
IMHO that should be a separate table parameter, WITH (fsm_mode =
append)
Index only scans would also benefit from that.
-1 ... I cannot believe that such a parameter would ever get turned on
in production by anyone. If your table has a significant update rate,
the resulting table bloat would make such behavior completely
infeasible. If you have few enough updates to make such a behavior
practical, then you can live with the expensive index updates instead.
Can you have pages that are receiving updates _not_ track min/max, until
the page is nearly full? This would require full scans of such pages,
but there might be few of them. The amount of free spaces on the page
as reported by FSM might be useful here.
Yes, that is the proposal. Just like index only scans.

--
  Simon Riggs http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
  PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services

Search Discussions

Discussion Posts

Previous

Follow ups

Related Discussions

Discussion Navigation
viewthread | post
posts ‹ prev | 20 of 27 | next ›
Discussion Overview
grouppgsql-hackers @
categoriespostgresql
postedJun 14, '13 at 10:28p
activeJul 19, '13 at 4:43p
posts27
users11
websitepostgresql.org...
irc#postgresql

People

Translate

site design / logo © 2017 Grokbase