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

Re: Resumable vacuum proposal and design overview

From: "Jim C(dot) Nasby" <jim(at)nasby(dot)net>
To: Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>
Cc: Gregory Stark <stark(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>,Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>,Galy Lee <lee(dot)galy(at)oss(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Resumable vacuum proposal and design overview
Date: 2007-03-01 15:10:32
Message-ID: 20070301151031.GI15006@nasby.net (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers
On Wed, Feb 28, 2007 at 10:14:24PM +0000, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
> cache instead. In the index scan phase, it's randomly accessed, but if 
> the table is clustered, it's in fact not completely random access. In 
> the 2nd vacuum pass, the array is scanned sequentially again. I'm not 

Only if there's only one index on the table... otherwise I'd argue that
you're much less likely to be searching the TID list incrementally.
-- 
Jim Nasby                                            jim(at)nasby(dot)net
EnterpriseDB      http://enterprisedb.com      512.569.9461 (cell)

In response to

Responses

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Heikki LinnakangasDate: 2007-03-01 15:11:11
Subject: Re: Resumable vacuum proposal and design overview
Previous:From: Hannu KrosingDate: 2007-03-01 14:54:44
Subject: Re: Revitalising VACUUM FULL for 8.3

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