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

Re: Press Release

From: "scott(dot)marlowe" <scott(dot)marlowe(at)ihs(dot)com>
To: Robert Treat <xzilla(at)users(dot)sourceforge(dot)net>
Cc: Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com>, <pgsql-advocacy(at)postgresql(dot)org>,Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Subject: Re: Press Release
Date: 2003-10-29 23:03:50
Message-ID: Pine.LNX.4.33.0310291602220.22178-100000@css120.ihs.com (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-advocacy
On 29 Oct 2003, Robert Treat wrote:

> On Wed, 2003-10-29 at 17:24, Josh Berkus wrote:
> > If anybody has evidence that the FSM index management doens't work, then we'll 
> > cut the paragraph.  However, I'm inclined to trust Tom & Co., and my only 
> > simple tests seemed to uphold the Lazy-Vacuum-ability of indexes.
> 
> Tom has laid out at least one case where the potential for index growth
> exits, though I don't see it in a quick search of the archives...
> 
> Tom, can you weigh in here?

I thought that was more the case where indexes may be up to 33% larger 
than they would be if they were created staticly, but no more.  Or 
something like that.  If the possible maximum size of a vacuumed index is 
1/3 or so greater than the most compact size, I wouldn't consider that 
bloated.  not like the old way, where you'd have tons of dead nodes in the 
btree index.


In response to

pgsql-advocacy by date

Next:From: Joshua D. DrakeDate: 2003-10-29 23:04:04
Subject: Re: Press Release
Previous:From: Robert TreatDate: 2003-10-29 22:59:34
Subject: Re: Press Release

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