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

Re: [HACKERS] Trivial patch to double vacuum speed on tables with no indexes

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Gregory Stark <stark(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>
Cc: pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org, pgsql-patches(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Trivial patch to double vacuum speed on tables with no indexes
Date: 2006-08-27 17:12:31
Message-ID: 1540.1156698751@sss.pgh.pa.us (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackerspgsql-patches
Gregory Stark <stark(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> writes:
> Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> writes:
>> How often does that case come up in the real world, for tables that are
>> large enough that you'd care about vacuum performance?

> I would have had the same objection if it resulted in substantially more
> complex code but it was so simple that it doesn't seem like a concern.

The reason the patch is so short is that it's a kluge.  If we really
cared about supporting this case, more wide-ranging changes would be
needed (eg, there's no need to eat maintenance_work_mem worth of RAM
for the dead-TIDs array); and a decent respect to the opinions of
mankind would require some attention to updating the header comments
and function descriptions, too.

			regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Alvaro HerreraDate: 2006-08-27 17:40:48
Subject: Re: integration of pgcluster into postgresql
Previous:From: Peter EisentrautDate: 2006-08-27 17:07:39
Subject: Re: integration of pgcluster into postgresql

pgsql-patches by date

Next:From: Sven SuursohoDate: 2006-08-27 18:36:41
Subject: Re: plpython improvements
Previous:From: Gregory StarkDate: 2006-08-27 17:00:15
Subject: Re: Trivial patch to double vacuum speed on tables with no indexes

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