Re: sequence indexes

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Vince Vielhaber <vev(at)michvhf(dot)com>
Cc: pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: sequence indexes
Date: 2002-01-25 20:56:05
Message-ID: 5377.1011992165@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Vince Vielhaber <vev(at)michvhf(dot)com> writes:
> A bit much diskspace for that, isn't it? The data turns over alot.

Yeah, this is one of the scenarios where we desperately need index
compaction. The index pages holding the lower serial numbers are
no doubt empty or nearly so, but there's no mechanism for reclaiming
that space short of rebuilding the index. (BTW you might consider
REINDEX instead of a manual drop/recreate.)

I've looked at the problem a little bit --- there's literature more
recent than Lehmann-Yao that talks about how to do btree compaction
without losing concurrency. But it didn't get done for 7.2.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Vince Vielhaber 2002-01-25 21:00:03 Re: sequence indexes
Previous Message Bill Studenmund 2002-01-25 20:50:26 Re: RFD: schemas and different kinds of Postgres objects