Re: Bitmap Indexes patch

From: Gregory Stark <stark(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>
To: Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com>
Cc: Gianni Ciolli <gianni(dot)ciolli(at)2ndquadrant(dot)it>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Gabriele Bartolini <gabriele(dot)bartolini(at)2ndquadrant(dot)it>
Subject: Re: Bitmap Indexes patch
Date: 2008-11-04 11:17:15
Message-ID: 873ai791vo.fsf@oxford.xeocode.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers


Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com> writes:

> On Mon, 2008-11-03 at 23:28 +0000, Simon Riggs wrote:
>> On Mon, 2008-11-03 at 17:37 -0500, Greg Stark wrote:
>>
>> > There are a lot of comments in the code which imply that vacuuming is
>> > not implemented but in fact from what I can see it is -- sort of. It
>> > does rewrite the bitmap in bmbulkdelete but it doesn't have to rebuild
>> > the index from scratch. Are the comments out of date or am i
>> > misunderstanding them or the code? How complete is the vacuum
>> > implementation?
>>
>> As I understood it, complete.
>
> Looking at the code, it looks like my understanding was complete-ly
> wrong and your comments seem accurate.

What I would appreciate is a README explaining how vacuum and vacuum full
work.

--
Gregory Stark
EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com
Ask me about EnterpriseDB's 24x7 Postgres support!

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Fujii Masao 2008-11-04 12:04:33 Signal handling patch (v2) for Synch Rep
Previous Message Detlef Ulherr 2008-11-04 11:09:44 Probable problem with pg_standby