Re: [HACKERS] Re: vacuum timings

From: Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Hiroshi Inoue <Inoue(at)tpf(dot)co(dot)jp>
Cc: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Re: vacuum timings
Date: 2000-01-22 17:33:29
Message-ID: 200001221733.MAA21558@candle.pha.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

> > Quite a few people have reported finding the opposite in practice.
> > You should probably try vacuuming after deleting or updating some
> > fraction of the rows, rather than just the all or none cases.
> >
>
> Vacuum after delelting all rows isn't a worst case.
> There's no moving in that case and vacuum doesn't need to call
> index_insert() corresponding to the moving of heap tuples.
>
> Vacuum after deleting half of rows may be one of the worst case.
> In this case,index_delete() is called as many times as 'delete all'
> case and expensive index_insert() is called for moved_in tuples.

I will test that.

--
Bruce Momjian | http://www.op.net/~candle
pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us | (610) 853-3000
+ If your life is a hard drive, | 830 Blythe Avenue
+ Christ can be your backup. | Drexel Hill, Pennsylvania 19026

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Bruce Momjian 2000-01-22 17:36:16 Re: [HACKERS] off topic
Previous Message Byron Nikolaidis 2000-01-22 16:40:46 Re: [INTERFACES] Re: ODBC drive strange behavior