Re: Reducing relation locking overhead
От | Hannu Krosing |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Reducing relation locking overhead |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 1134025062.3641.22.camel@localhost.localdomain обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: Reducing relation locking overhead ("Jim C. Nasby" <jim@nasby.net>) |
Ответы |
Re: Reducing relation locking overhead
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
Ühel kenal päeval, N, 2005-12-08 kell 00:16, kirjutas Jim C. Nasby: > On Sat, Dec 03, 2005 at 10:15:25AM -0500, Greg Stark wrote: > > Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> writes: > > > What's worse, once you have excluded writes you have to rescan the entire > > > table to be sure you haven't missed anything. So in the scenarios where this > > > whole thing is actually interesting, ie enormous tables, you're still > > > talking about a fairly long interval with writes locked out. Maybe not as > > > long as a complete REINDEX, but long. > > > > I was thinking you would set a flag to disable use of the FSM for > > inserts/updates while the reindex was running. So you would know where to find > > the new tuples, at the end of the table after the last tuple you read. > > What about keeping a seperate list of new tuples? Obviously we'd only do > this when an index was being built on a table. The problem with separate list is that it can be huge. For example on a table with 200 inserts/updates per second an index build lasting 6 hours would accumulate total on 6*3600*200 = 4320000 new tuples. ---------------- Hannu
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: