Re: Frequent Update Project: Design Overview of HOTUpdates - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Robert Treat
Subject Re: Frequent Update Project: Design Overview of HOTUpdates
Date
Msg-id 200611121301.21287.xzilla@users.sourceforge.net
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Frequent Update Project: Design Overview of HOTUpdates  ("Simon Riggs" <simon@2ndquadrant.com>)
Responses Re: Frequent Update Project: Design Overview ofHOTUpdates  ("Simon Riggs" <simon@2ndquadrant.com>)
List pgsql-hackers
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 VACUUM the indexes, which is the most expensive part. The
> more indexes you have, the more VACUUM costs, not so with HOT.
>

This isn't exactly true though right?  Since the more indexes you have, the 
more likely it is that your updating an indexed column, which means HOT isn't 
going to work for you.  One common use case that seems problematic is the 
indexed, frequently updated timestamp field.

-- 
Robert Treat
Build A Brighter LAMP :: Linux Apache {middleware} PostgreSQL


pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Andrew Dunstan
Date:
Subject: Re: [PATCHES] WIP 2 interpreters for plperl
Next
From: "Jaime Casanova"
Date:
Subject: error compiling 8.2 in debian sarge