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

Re: Index tuple count != heap tuple count problem identified]

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>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgreSQL(dot)org
Subject: Re: Index tuple count != heap tuple count problem identified]
Date: 2000-04-06 01:24:26
Message-ID: 200004060124.VAA22612@candle.pha.pa.us (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: pgsql-hackers-owner(at)hub(dot)org [mailto:pgsql-hackers-owner(at)hub(dot)org]On
> > Behalf Of Tom Lane
> > 
> > You'll probably recall reports of messages like this out of VACUUM:
> > NOTICE:  Index ind1: NUMBER OF INDEX' TUPLES (2002) IS NOT THE 
> > SAME AS HEAP' (3003).
> > I've figured out the cause (or at least a cause) of this condition.
> > 
> > The CREATE INDEX operation has only bothered to index the non-dead
> > tuples.  So, VACUUM's little sanity check fails.
>
> 
> Is it wrong to change the implementation of CREATE INDEX ?
> I have a fix.
> It needs the change of duplicate check(tuplesort->btbuild) and
> I've thougth that it would be better to change it after the release 
> of 7.0.   

Well, it seems we better do something about it before 7.0 is released. 
Now it seems we have to decide to change CREATE INDEX, or modify VACUUM.

-- 
  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

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Hiroshi InoueDate: 2000-04-06 01:37:14
Subject: RE: postgres crash on CURSORS
Previous:From: Hiroshi InoueDate: 2000-04-06 01:17:45
Subject: RE: Index tuple count != heap tuple count problem identified

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