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

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 (view raw or flat)
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

pgsql-hackers by date

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

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