On Tue, 2006-11-07 at 13:02 +0900, ITAGAKI Takahiro wrote: > "Simon Riggs" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > EnterpriseDB has been running a research project to improve the > > performance of heavily updated tables. We have a number of approaches > > prototyped and we'd like to discuss the best of these now on -hackers > > for community input and patch submission to PostgreSQL core. > > I'm very interested in your proposal! NTT is also working for OLTP workloads, > especially on improvements of VACUUM. Maybe we have similar problems.
Seems very likely. > I made a prototypes of Heap-needs-vacuum-bitmap and per-entry-index-deletion. > The test result shows that it saves vacuuming time. I'm refining and making > it robust now. > > We can make use of the present structures with the approach, so I have > thought it is a relatively good direction. However, you seem to propose > a whole new storage engine or on-disk-structure. Do you have any viewpoints > that some kinds of extending-VACUUM approach are not enough? Thats been something we have considered, with good results. We still need to VACUUM, but in a modified way. > It would be very nice if you could give us some more background. Certainly. We'll be posting a full design description on Wednesday; I'm just editing that now. -- Simon Riggs EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 2: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster
