On Fri, Feb 24, 2017 at 02:14:23PM +0530, Pavan Deolasee wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 23, 2017 at 11:53 PM, Bruce Momjian <br...@momjian.us> wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 23, 2017 at 03:03:39PM -0300, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> > Bruce Momjian wrote:
> > > As I remember, WARM only allows
> > > a single index-column change in the chain. Why are you seeing such a
> > > large performance improvement? I would have thought it would be that
> > > high if we allowed an unlimited number of index changes in the chain.
> > The second update in a chain creates another non-warm-updated tuple, so
> > the third update can be a warm update again, and so on.
> Right, before this patch they would be two independent HOT chains. It
> still seems like an unexpectedly-high performance win. Are two
> independent HOT chains that much more expensive than joining them via
> In these tests, there are zero HOT updates, since every update modifies some
> index column. With WARM, we could reduce regular updates to half, even when we
> allow only one WARM update per chain (chain really has a single tuple for this
> discussion). IOW approximately half updates insert new index entry in *every*
> index and half updates
> insert new index entry *only* in affected index. That itself does a good bit
> for performance.
> So to answer your question: yes, joining two HOT chains via WARM is much
> cheaper because it results in creating new index entries just for affected
OK, all my questions have been answered, including the use of flag bits.
Bruce Momjian <br...@momjian.us> http://momjian.us
+ As you are, so once was I. As I am, so you will be. +
+ Ancient Roman grave inscription +
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (email@example.com)
To make changes to your subscription: