Re: Trivial patch to double vacuum speed on tables with no indexes

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org, stark <stark(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>
Cc: pgsql-patches(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Trivial patch to double vacuum speed on tables with no indexes
Date: 2006-08-27 16:33:54
Message-ID: 1297.1156696434@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers pgsql-patches

stark <stark(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> writes:
> There isn't really any need for the second pass in lazy vacuum if the table
> has no indexes.

How often does that case come up in the real world, for tables that are
large enough that you'd care about vacuum performance?

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2006-08-27 16:47:12 Re: integration of pgcluster into postgresql
Previous Message Tom Lane 2006-08-27 15:31:43 Re: [Open Item] Re: Autovacuum on by default?

Browse pgsql-patches by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Gregory Stark 2006-08-27 17:00:15 Re: Trivial patch to double vacuum speed on tables with no indexes
Previous Message Andrew Dunstan 2006-08-27 14:17:44 Re: Adding fulldisjunctions to the contrib