Re: [PoC] Improve dead tuple storage for lazy vacuum - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From John Naylor
Subject Re: [PoC] Improve dead tuple storage for lazy vacuum
Date
Msg-id CAFBsxsFrN_JT5d0ggdzz_NkHFYEimkJ25pTeEMo8pqB4b-1FYA@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: [PoC] Improve dead tuple storage for lazy vacuum  (Masahiko Sawada <sawada.mshk@gmail.com>)
Responses Re: [PoC] Improve dead tuple storage for lazy vacuum
List pgsql-hackers

On Thu, Sep 22, 2022 at 1:26 PM Masahiko Sawada <sawada.mshk@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Thu, Sep 22, 2022 at 1:46 PM John Naylor
> <john.naylor@enterprisedb.com> wrote:
> > While on the subject, I wonder how important it is to keep the chunks in the small nodes in sorted order. That adds branches and memmove calls, and is the whole reason for the recent "pg_lfind_ge" function.
>
> Good point. While keeping the chunks in the small nodes in sorted
> order is useful for visiting all keys in sorted order, additional
> branches and memmove calls could be slow.

Right, the ordering is a property that some users will need, so best to keep it. Although the node128 doesn't have that property -- too slow to do so, I think.

--
John Naylor
EDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com

pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Alvaro Herrera
Date:
Subject: Re: why can't a table be part of the same publication as its schema
Next
From: Simon Riggs
Date:
Subject: Re: Pruning never visible changes