Matthew T. O'Connor escribió:
> Tom Lane wrote:
>> Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com> writes:
>>> This is an interesting idea, but I think it's attacking the wrong
>>> problem. To me, the problem here is that an ANALYZE should not block
>>> CREATE INDEX or certain forms of ALTER TABLE.
>> I doubt that that will work; in particular I'm pretty dubious that you
>> can safely make CREATE INDEX and VACUUM run together. Since they'd be
>> unlikely to be using the identical OldestXmin horizon, you'd likely end
>> up with dangling index entries (ie, CREATE INDEX indexes a tuple that
>> the VACUUM removes shortly afterward).
> I think the main issue is ANALYZE not VACUUM (at least in this thread)
> since it's DB load times that are in question.
Right. Autovac will not issue VACUUM against the freshly restored
tables anyway, since there are no deleted tuples.
> Can CREATE INDEX and ANALYZE be made to run concurrently?
I don't see why not (except for the fact that both try to update
reltuples and relpages AFAIR, so we would need to be careful about
Alvaro Herrera http://www.CommandPrompt.com/
The PostgreSQL Company - Command Prompt, Inc.
In response to
pgsql-hackers by date
|Next:||From: Gregory Stark||Date: 2007-10-01 21:33:37|
|Subject: Re: pgsql: Use BIO functions to avoid passing FILE * pointers to OpenSSL|
|Previous:||From: Matthew T. O'Connor||Date: 2007-10-01 20:40:21|
|Subject: Re: First steps with 8.3 and autovacuum launcher|