On Fri, 2006-11-17 at 09:25 -0600, Kevin Grittner wrote:
> Like Hannu, we do use conditional indexes with high updates on columns
> in the WHERE clause, although these columns are not part of the index
> sequence. For example, we have a receivables table which contains a
> balance due. For audit
On Fri, 2006-11-17 at 13:30 +0200, Hannu Krosing wrote:
> Ühel kenal päeval, E, 2006-11-13 kell 13:42, kirjutas Csaba Nagy:
> > [snip]
> > > IMHO *most* UPDATEs occur on non-indexed fields. [snip]
> > >
> > > If my assumption is badly wrong on that then perhaps HOT would not be
> > > useful after
Ühel kenal päeval, E, 2006-11-13 kell 13:42, kirjutas Csaba Nagy:
> [snip]
> > IMHO *most* UPDATEs occur on non-indexed fields. [snip]
> >
> > If my assumption is badly wrong on that then perhaps HOT would not be
> > useful after all. If we find that the majority of UPDATEs meet the HOT
> > pre-co
Simon Riggs wrote:
> If my assumption is badly wrong on that then perhaps HOT would not be
> useful after all. If we find that the majority of UPDATEs meet the HOT
> pre-conditions, then I would continue to advocate it.
This is exactly my situation. All updated hit non-indexed fields, with a
lot o
[snip]
> IMHO *most* UPDATEs occur on non-indexed fields. [snip]
>
> If my assumption is badly wrong on that then perhaps HOT would not be
> useful after all. If we find that the majority of UPDATEs meet the HOT
> pre-conditions, then I would continue to advocate it.
Just to confirm that the scen
On Sun, 2006-11-12 at 18:31 -0500, Robert Treat wrote:
> if your not updating all of the indexes on a table (which isn't
> likely) you're going to be better off with HOT
Do you mean *any* rather than all?
> (which isn't likely)
There is no chance involved, unless the DBA adding indexes is unaw
On Sunday 12 November 2006 16:23, Simon Riggs wrote:
> On Sun, 2006-11-12 at 13:01 -0500, Robert Treat wrote:
> > On Friday 10 November 2006 08:53, Simon Riggs wrote:
> > > On Fri, 2006-11-10 at 12:32 +0100, Zeugswetter Andreas ADI SD wrote:
> > > > 4. although at first it might seem so I see no ad
On Sun, 2006-11-12 at 13:01 -0500, Robert Treat wrote:
> On Friday 10 November 2006 08:53, Simon Riggs wrote:
> > On Fri, 2006-11-10 at 12:32 +0100, Zeugswetter Andreas ADI SD wrote:
> > > 4. although at first it might seem so I see no advantage for vacuum with
> > > overflow
> >
> > No need to VAC
On Fri, 2006-11-10 at 17:04 +0100, Zeugswetter Andreas ADI SD wrote:
> > > True, but Nikhil has run tests that clearly show HOT outperforming
> > > current situation in the case of long running transactions. The need
>
> > > to optimise HeapTupleSatisfiesVacuum() and avoid long chains does
> > >
On Fri, 2006-11-10 at 20:38 +0200, Hannu Krosing wrote:
> Ühel kenal päeval, R, 2006-11-10 kell 12:19, kirjutas Simon Riggs:
> > On Thu, 2006-11-09 at 18:28 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
>
> > > > HOT can only work in cases where a tuple does not modify one of the
> > > > columns defined in an index on t
On Fri, 2006-11-10 at 17:00 +0100, Zeugswetter Andreas ADI SD wrote:
> > > 2. locking should be easier if only the original heap page is
> involved.
> >
> > Yes, but multi-page update already happens now, so HOT is not
> > different on that point.
>
> I was thinking about the case when you "pull
11 matches
Mail list logo
