| From: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Greg Stark <gsstark(at)mit(dot)edu> |
| Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: remove flatfiles.c |
| Date: | 2009-09-01 23:01:34 |
| Message-ID: | 20090901230134.GB7243@alvh.no-ip.org |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Greg Stark wrote:
> The use cases where VACUUM FULL wins currently are where storing two
> copies of the table and its indexes concurrently just isn't practical.
Yeah, but then do you really need to use VACUUM FULL? If that's really
a problem then there ain't that many dead tuples around.
> Also perhaps tables where there are too many large indexes to make
> rebuilding them all in one maintenance window practical.
If that's the concern maybe we oughta do something about concurrently
re-creating those indexes somehow. Plain REINDEX doesn't work of
course, but maybe we can do some trick with creating a new index and
dropping the original one afterwards.
--
Alvaro Herrera http://www.CommandPrompt.com/
PostgreSQL Replication, Consulting, Custom Development, 24x7 support
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Greg Stark | 2009-09-01 23:34:07 | Re: remove flatfiles.c |
| Previous Message | Greg Stark | 2009-09-01 22:53:57 | Re: remove flatfiles.c |