Re: Skipping VACUUM of indexes when no work required

From: Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us>, pgsql-patches(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Skipping VACUUM of indexes when no work required
Date: 2006-02-12 13:12:17
Message-ID: 1139749937.1258.623.camel@localhost.localdomain
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-patches

On Sat, 2006-02-11 at 16:36 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> writes:
> > I believe this is safe.
>
> I won't insult your intelligence by pointing out how I know that you
> didn't even test the patch against hash or gist.

I don't recall either way, though from what you say it seems I did not
test those cases. Thanks for catching my error.

> The major problem with the patch is that it's incapable of producing
> correct tuple-count stats for partial indexes, which is really not
> acceptable from a planning standpoint. What I'm currently fooling with
> is skipping the bulkdelete scan only if the index isn't partial...

Thanks for spotting this case. I strive to learn.

Best Regards, Simon Riggs

In response to

Browse pgsql-patches by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Bruce Momjian 2006-02-12 15:26:09 Re: psql tab completion enhancements
Previous Message Bruce Momjian 2006-02-12 07:29:38 Re: parallel builds with dependencies