Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: pgstatindex

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Tatsuo Ishii <t-ishii(at)sra(dot)co(dot)jp>
Cc: pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: pgstatindex
Date: 2002-05-27 17:17:13
Message-ID: 14179.1022519833@sss.pgh.pa.us (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers
Tatsuo Ishii <t-ishii(at)sra(dot)co(dot)jp> writes:
> Sure. In my understanding, unlike tables "free/reusable space" is
> actually not reused in index. pgstatindex would be usefull to judge if
> REINDEX is needed by showing the growth of physical length and
> "free/reusable space".

Oh.  Hmm, if that's what you want then I do not think an indexscan is
the way to go about it.  The indexscan will only visit leaf pages
(and not, for example, internal nodes of a btree).  Also the
free-space-counting code you're using seems pretty unworkable since the
indexscan is unlikely to visit leaf pages in anything like sequential
order.

I think the only reasonable way to get useful statistics would be to
read the index directly --- page by page, no indexscan, distinguishing
leaf pages, internal pages, and overhead pages for yourself.  This would
require index-AM-specific knowledge about how to tell which type each
page is, but I believe all the index AMs make that possible.

Also, I'd suggest that visiting the heap is just useless overhead.  A
person who wants to know whether the heap needs to be vacuumed can get
that data from pgstattuple.  Reading the heap to check tuple state will
make this function orders of magnitude slower, while not producing much
useful info that I can see.

Something else to think about is how to present the results.  As soon
as you release this we will have people bleating about how come their
btrees always show at least 1/3rd free space :-( unless we can think
of a way to highlight the fact that that's the expected loading factor
for a btree...

			regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Henrik SteffenDate: 2002-05-27 17:27:05
Subject: Re: Invalid length of startup packet
Previous:From: Tom LaneDate: 2002-05-27 17:02:29
Subject: Re: Invalid length of startup packet

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2014 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group