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

Re: GIN fast-insert vs autovacuum scheduling

From: Jeff Davis <pgsql(at)j-davis(dot)com>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com>, Teodor Sigaev <teodor(at)sigaev(dot)ru>, Oleg Bartunov <oleg(at)sai(dot)msu(dot)su>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgreSQL(dot)org
Subject: Re: GIN fast-insert vs autovacuum scheduling
Date: 2009-03-23 22:59:45
Message-ID: (view raw, whole thread or download thread mbox)
Lists: pgsql-hackers
On Mon, 2009-03-23 at 15:23 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> There is no need for any such infrastructure if we just drive it off a
>  post-ANALYZE callback.

That sounds reasonable, although it does seem a little strange for
analyze to actually perform cleanup.

Now that we have FSM, the cost of VACUUMing insert-only tables is a lot
less. Does that possibly justify running VACUUM on insert-only tables?
On tables without GIN indexes, that wouldn't be a complete waste,
because it could set hint bits, which needs to be done sometime anyway.

	Jeff Davis

In response to


pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Tom LaneDate: 2009-03-23 23:10:32
Subject: Re: contrib function naming, and upgrade issues
Previous:From: Josh BerkusDate: 2009-03-23 22:34:12
Subject: Re: hstore improvements?

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2017 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group