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

pgsql: Actually there's a better way to do this, which is to count

From: tgl(at)postgresql(dot)org (Tom Lane)
To: pgsql-committers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: pgsql: Actually there's a better way to do this, which is to count
Date: 2006-02-12 00:18:17
Message-ID: 20060212001817.B920C9DCBC7@postgresql.org (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-committers
Log Message:
-----------
Actually there's a better way to do this, which is to count tuples
during the vacuumcleanup scan that we're going to do anyway.  Should
save a few cycles (one calculation per page, not per tuple) as well
as not having to depend on assumptions about heap and index being
in step.
I think this could probably be made to work for GIST too, but that
code looks messy enough that I'm disinclined to try right now.

Modified Files:
--------------
    pgsql/src/backend/access/nbtree:
        nbtree.c (r1.139 -> r1.140)
        (http://developer.postgresql.org/cvsweb.cgi/pgsql/src/backend/access/nbtree/nbtree.c.diff?r1=1.139&r2=1.140)

pgsql-committers by date

Next:From: Tom LaneDate: 2006-02-12 00:29:10
Subject: Re: pgsql: Allow ALTER TABLE ...
Previous:From: Tom LaneDate: 2006-02-11 23:31:34
Subject: pgsql: Skip ambulkdelete scan if there's nothing to delete and the index

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