| From: | "Jim C(dot) Nasby" <jim(at)nasby(dot)net> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Block B-Tree concept |
| Date: | 2006-09-27 05:52:53 |
| Message-ID: | 20060927055253.GC19827@nasby.net |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, Sep 26, 2006 at 08:51:10AM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> > 3. Do nothing. Let index scans mark the index tuple as dead when it's
> > convenient. There's no correctness problem with just leaving dead index
> > tuples there, because you have to check the index quals on each heap
> > tuple anyway when you scan.
>
> And we're back to routine REINDEX I guess :-(. This doesn't seem like a
> satisfactory answer.
Couldn't vacuum just eliminate tuples marked dead? Heck, don't we do
that anyway right now?
Granted, you'd want to periodically ensure that you scan the entire
index, but that shouldn't be horribly hard to set up.
--
Jim Nasby jim(at)nasby(dot)net
EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com 512.569.9461 (cell)
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Stefan Kaltenbrunner | 2006-09-27 05:58:39 | Re: -HEAD planner issue wrt hash_joins on dbt3 ? |
| Previous Message | Jim C. Nasby | 2006-09-27 05:50:57 | Re: Block B-Tree concept |