Re: [HACKERS] Small improvement to compactify_tuples - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Peter Geoghegan
Subject Re: [HACKERS] Small improvement to compactify_tuples
Date
Msg-id CAH2-WzkV3t4Y--RLoFCmeGL6ktPLFgdMyFyEc8yea2hTf6=AqA@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: [HACKERS] Small improvement to compactify_tuples  (Юрий Соколов <funny.falcon@gmail.com>)
List pgsql-hackers
On Tue, Nov 7, 2017 at 2:40 PM, Юрий Соколов <funny.falcon@gmail.com> wrote:
>> The same is true of unique indexes vs. non-unique.
>
> offtopic: recently I'd a look at setting LP_DEAD in indexes.
> I didn't found huge difference between unique and non-unique indices.
> There is codepath that works only for unique, but it is called less
> frequently than common codepath that also sets LP_DEAD.

I meant to say that this is only important with UPDATEs + contention.
The extra LP_DEAD setting within _bt_check_unique() makes quite a
noticeable difference, at least in terms of index bloat (though less
so in terms of raw TPS).

--
Peter Geoghegan


--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers

pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Peter Geoghegan
Date:
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Small improvement to compactify_tuples
Next
From: Michael Paquier
Date:
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Remove secondary checkpoint