Re: [HACKERS] UPDATE performance degradation (6.5.1)

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Oleg Bartunov <oleg(at)sai(dot)msu(dot)su>
Cc: pgsql-hackers(at)postgreSQL(dot)org
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] UPDATE performance degradation (6.5.1)
Date: 1999-07-27 14:57:36
Message-ID: 7280.933087456@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Oleg Bartunov <oleg(at)sai(dot)msu(dot)su> writes:
> and after vacuum analyze:
> -rw------- 1 postgres users 8192 Jul 27 18:54 hits
> -rw------- 1 postgres users 1703936 Jul 27 18:54 hits_pkey
> Why hits_pkey is so big ? I have only 7 rows in the table.

Looks like vacuum reclaims the extra space in the table itself,
but does not do so with indexes. Ugh.

I've thought for some time that vacuum ought to drop and rebuild
indexes instead of trying to update them. This might be another
reason for doing that...

regards, tom lane

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Bruce Momjian 1999-07-27 15:12:10 Re: [PORTS] RedHat6.0 & Alpha
Previous Message Zeugswetter Andreas IZ5 1999-07-27 14:57:06 Re: [HACKERS] UPDATE performance degradation (6.5.1)