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
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 |