Gregory Stark <stark(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> writes:
>> It will certainly not "solve" the problem.  What it will do is mean that
>> the breaks are further apart and longer, which seems to me to make the
>> conflict with syncscan behavior worse not better.

> How would it make them longer? They still have the same amount of i/o to do
> scanning the indexes. I suppose they would dirty more pages which might slow
> them down?

More tuples to delete = more writes (in WAL, if not immediately in the
index itself) = longer to complete the indexscan.  It's still cheaper
than doing multiple indexscans, of course, but my point is that the
index-fixing work gets concentrated.

			regards, tom lane

In response to

• Re: synchronized scans for VACUUM at 2008-06-01 12:20:51 from Gregory Stark

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:	From: Jonah H. Harris	Date: 2008-06-01 14:56:10
	Subject: Re: Feedback on blog post about Replication Feature decision and its impact
Previous:	From: Dirk Riehle	Date: 2008-06-01 13:31:44
	Subject: Re: Feedback on blog post about Replication Feature decision and its impact