Re: Multiple FPI_FOR_HINT for the same block during killing btreeindex items - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Peter Geoghegan
Subject Re: Multiple FPI_FOR_HINT for the same block during killing btreeindex items
Date
Msg-id CAH2-Wzm-Pf2xKR2mfk55s88_8RGXix2VJH4R0Wmk7=YwVuH19Q@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Multiple FPI_FOR_HINT for the same block during killing btreeindex items  (Peter Geoghegan <pg@bowt.ie>)
Responses Re: Multiple FPI_FOR_HINT for the same block during killing btreeindex items  (James Coleman <jtc331@gmail.com>)
List pgsql-hackers
On Thu, Apr 9, 2020 at 5:25 PM Peter Geoghegan <pg@bowt.ie> wrote:
> Was this a low cardinality index in the way I describe? If it was,
> then we can hope (and maybe even verify) that the Postgres 12 work
> noticeably ameliorates the problem.

What I really meant was an index where hundreds or even thousands of
rows for each distinct timestamp value are expected. Not an index
where almost every row has a distinct timestamp value. Both timestamp
index patterns are common, obviously.

-- 
Peter Geoghegan



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Peter Geoghegan
Date:
Subject: Re: Multiple FPI_FOR_HINT for the same block during killing btreeindex items
Next
From: Andres Freund
Date:
Subject: Re: Catalog invalidations vs catalog scans vs ScanPgRelation()