| From: | Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | "Jim C(dot) Nasby" <jim(at)nasby(dot)net> |
| Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Block B-Tree concept |
| Date: | 2006-09-27 08:23:02 |
| Message-ID: | 451A34E6.8020705@enterprisedb.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Jim C. Nasby wrote:
> Couldn't vacuum just eliminate tuples marked dead? Heck, don't we do
> that anyway right now?
You mean _index_ tuples marked dead? Sure, no problem there.
> Granted, you'd want to periodically ensure that you scan the entire
> index, but that shouldn't be horribly hard to set up.
Well, it seems to be. A vacuum can't evaluate index expressions because
it's not in a real transaction.
The DBA could set up a cron job to do "SELECT * FROM foo WHERE bar > 0"
etc. with enable_seqscan=false? That would work, but we can't depend on
an additional administrative task like. And we might as well just
disable the optimization that's causing us problems.
--
Heikki Linnakangas
EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Heikki Linnakangas | 2006-09-27 08:35:34 | Re: Constant changes (Re-Build) |
| Previous Message | Heikki Linnakangas | 2006-09-27 08:17:52 | Re: Block B-Tree concept |