Bruce Momjian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The attached patch requires the new row to fit, and 10% to be free on
> the page. Would someone test that?
This is another solution for the same purpose. We can avoid to call
PageIndexMultiDelete() to remove only one tuple. _bt_split() becomes
to ignor
ITAGAKI Takahiro <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Tom Lane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> The problem is that we've traded splitting a page every few hundred
>> inserts for doing a PageIndexMultiDelete, and emitting an extra WAL
>> record, on *every* insert. This is not good.
> I suspect PageIndexMul
Tom Lane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> ITAGAKI Takahiro <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I've applied this but I'm now having some second thoughts about it,
> because I'm seeing an actual *decrease* in pgbench numbers from the
> immediately prior CVS HEAD code.
> Had you done any performance testing
ITAGAKI Takahiro <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Tom Lane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> I think the only serious objection to this would be that it'd mean that
>> tuples that should have an index entry might not have one.
> This can occurs when we do REINDEX after DELETE, because dead tuples are
> e
Tom Lane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I think the only serious objection to this would be that it'd mean that
> tuples that should have an index entry might not have one.
This can occurs when we do REINDEX after DELETE, because dead tuples are
excluded on REINDEX. So we cannot guarantee that all
On Wed, Jul 12, 2006 at 03:59:01PM +0900, ITAGAKI Takahiro wrote:
> Hi Hackers,
>
> Can we resurrect the patch proposed by Junji TERAMOTO?
> It removes unnecessary items before btree pages split.
> http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-patches/2006-01/msg00301.php
>
> There was a problem in the
Hi Hackers,
Can we resurrect the patch proposed by Junji TERAMOTO?
It removes unnecessary items before btree pages split.
http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-patches/2006-01/msg00301.php
There was a problem in the patch when we restarted scans from deleted tuples.
But now we scan pages at-a-ti