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

Re: Resumable vacuum proposal and design overview

From: Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>
To: "Jim C(dot) Nasby" <jim(at)nasby(dot)net>
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 15:11:11
Message-ID: 45E6ED0F.5030104@enterprisedb.com (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers
Jim C. Nasby wrote:
> 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.

Yeah, sure.

-- 
   Heikki Linnakangas
   EnterpriseDB   http://www.enterprisedb.com

In response to

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Pavan DeolaseeDate: 2007-03-01 15:12:46
Subject: Re: HOT - preliminary results
Previous:From: Jim C. NasbyDate: 2007-03-01 15:10:32
Subject: Re: Resumable vacuum proposal and design overview

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