From: | Csaba Nagy <nagy(at)ecircle-ag(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com> |
Cc: | Mark Woodward <pgsql(at)mohawksoft(dot)com>, postgres hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: vacuum row? |
Date: | 2006-06-26 09:05:59 |
Message-ID: | 1151312759.3309.227.camel@coppola.muc.ecircle.de |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Sun, 2006-06-25 at 05:29, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> Mark Woodward wrote:
> > I originally suggested a methodology for preserving MVCC and everyone is
> > confusing it as update "in place," this isnot what I intended.
>
> It doesn't make sense, but maybe vacuuming a page would. Naturally, it
> would need to wholly scan all the indexes to clean'em up, so it's
> probably not a good idea in general.
But a version of vacuum which does normal index scans when vacuuming
just a small percent of a huge table would make sense wouldn't it ? So
you don't need to make full scans of the vacuumed indexes but look up
the entries based on the vacuumed key.
There were discussions about this I think, and the objection was that it
might be that an index scan might miss index entries, in particular when
badly behaved user defined functions are involved.
Cheers,
Csaba.
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Bruce Momjian | 2006-06-26 10:38:00 | Re: vacuum, performance, and MVCC |
Previous Message | Dave Page | 2006-06-26 07:28:20 | Re: Anyone still care about Cygwin? (was Re: [CORE] GPL |