On L, 2005-04-23 at 18:27 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Ron Mayer <rm_pg(at)cheapcomplexdevices(dot)com> writes:
> > Is this a fair summary of the potential benefits of READ-ONLY
> > tables? (from both this thread and the archives):
> > 1. Index-only scans are made possible fairly easily because
> > you wouldn't need to check the heap for visibility.
> > 2. Simple tables can be much smaller since you don't need
> > most of the HeapTupleHeaderData.
> What you are talking about is not a "read only" table, it is a
> "non-MVCC" table. This is a much greater assault on the fundamental
> semantics of Postgres than it's being painted to be in this thread.
That's why I proposed a much less ambitious, and much more "low-hanging-
fruit-first" compliant thing when I satrted the thread - a simple two-
flag system to mark a relation as safe to use for index-only queries.
Main use of that would be in partiotioned table setups in data
warehouses, where older partitions can be switched to read-only state.
and such all-or-nothing scheme would also make it much easier to
estimate cost of index(only)scan.
> In particular, how is such a table going to come into being? You'd
> not be able to just flip the READ-ONLY flag on and off.
original idea (with HeapTupleHeader intact) was to first mark the table
as READ-ONLY, and then either run VACUUM, or preferrably VACUUM-FULL +
REINDEX TABLE on it, so that all index tuples point to valid and visible
A check must be made to make sure, that all transactions started before
setting the READ-ONLY flag have finished before starting VACUUM or
> (The notion of having tuples in the system that don't have the standard
> HeapTupleHeader is not as easy to implement as you might think, either,
> because that data structure is *everywhere*.)
My impression was, that HeapTupleHeader is usually not carried with
fields after doing the initial visibility checks ?
But if it is needed, then it should be added when generating tuples from
index scan, preferrably in such a way, that non-SELECT queries get these
tuples with Xids set in a way which prevent them from being modified.
> While I don't say it's impossible to do, I do think that the work and
> semantic ugliness involved would outweigh the possible benefits. In
> particular, there are other, more transparent ways of doing #1.
If HeapTupleHeader is essential for pg, than #1 should generate fake
HeapTupleHeader with some constant values (xmin=FrozenTransactionId,
BTW, do we really store tableoid column in heap tuples or is it added
somewhere on the way from heap ?
Hannu Krosing <hannu(at)tm(dot)ee>
In response to
pgsql-hackers by date
|Next:||From: Hannu Krosing||Date: 2005-04-24 09:02:37|
|Subject: How to make lazy VACUUM of one table run in several transactions ?|
|Previous:||From: Klaus Naumann||Date: 2005-04-24 07:59:42|
|Subject: Re: Constant WAL replay|