Re: vacuum row?

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.

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  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