| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | "Steven Flatt" <steven(dot)flatt(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | "Mark Kirkwood" <markir(at)paradise(dot)net(dot)nz>, "Gregory Stark" <stark(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, "Bill Moran" <wmoran(at)collaborativefusion(dot)com>, "Vivek Khera" <vivek(at)khera(dot)org>, "Pgsql performance" <pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: When/if to Reindex |
| Date: | 2007-08-24 16:15:25 |
| Message-ID: | 1759.1187972125@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-performance |
"Steven Flatt" <steven(dot)flatt(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
>> The fly in the ointment is that after collecting the pg_index definition
>> of the index, plancat.c also wants to know how big it is --- it calls
>> RelationGetNumberOfBlocks.
> Why do we even need to consider calling RelationGetNumberOfBlocks or looking
> at the pg_class.relpages entry? My understanding of the expected behaviour
> is that while a reindex is happening, all queries run against the parent
> table are planned as though the index isn't there (i.e. it's unusable).
Where in the world did you get that idea?
If we had a REINDEX CONCURRENTLY it might work that way. A normal
REINDEX cannot "mark" anything because it runs within a single
transaction; there is no way that it can emit any catalog changes
that will be visible before it's over.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Luke Lonergan | 2007-08-24 16:20:28 | Re: partitioned table and ORDER BY indexed_field DESC LIMIT 1 |
| Previous Message | Steven Flatt | 2007-08-24 14:22:38 | Re: When/if to Reindex |