On Feb 1, 2007, at 10:57 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
> ITAGAKI Takahiro <itagaki(dot)takahiro(at)oss(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp> writes:
>> I'm thinking to add "the number of vacuumed tuples" to the message
>> vacuum. The stats collector will subtract the value from
>> instead of setting it to zero. This is also needed if we want to make
>> some kinds of "partial" vacuum methods.
> This seems awfully dangerous to me, because then you are operating on
> dead reckoning forever: there will be nothing that can correct an
> inaccurate rowcount estimate, and in practice that means it will
> arbitrarily far from reality :-(, because of the inherent inaccuracies
> of the stats system. I think the risk of that is far worse than the
> relatively small (or at least bounded) error arising from tuples not
> seen by vacuum.
Yeah, it'd be better for vacuum to send a message stating how many
dead rows it couldn't remove, ala:
DETAIL: 0 dead row versions cannot be removed yet.
Granted, not perfect, but better than what we have now.
Jim Nasby jim(at)nasby(dot)net
EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com 512.569.9461 (cell)
In response to
pgsql-hackers by date
|Next:||From: Jeremy Drake||Date: 2007-02-02 06:16:54|
|Subject: Re: writing new regexp functions|
|Previous:||From: Jim Nasby||Date: 2007-02-02 05:57:41|
|Subject: Performance penalty of visibility info in indexes?|