From: | Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Hiroshi Inoue <Inoue(at)tpf(dot)co(dot)jp> |
Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgreSQL(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Index tuple count != heap tuple count problem identified] |
Date: | 2000-04-06 01:24:26 |
Message-ID: | 200004060124.VAA22612@candle.pha.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: pgsql-hackers-owner(at)hub(dot)org [mailto:pgsql-hackers-owner(at)hub(dot)org]On
> > Behalf Of Tom Lane
> >
> > You'll probably recall reports of messages like this out of VACUUM:
> > NOTICE: Index ind1: NUMBER OF INDEX' TUPLES (2002) IS NOT THE
> > SAME AS HEAP' (3003).
> > I've figured out the cause (or at least a cause) of this condition.
> >
> > The CREATE INDEX operation has only bothered to index the non-dead
> > tuples. So, VACUUM's little sanity check fails.
>
>
> Is it wrong to change the implementation of CREATE INDEX ?
> I have a fix.
> It needs the change of duplicate check(tuplesort->btbuild) and
> I've thougth that it would be better to change it after the release
> of 7.0.
Well, it seems we better do something about it before 7.0 is released.
Now it seems we have to decide to change CREATE INDEX, or modify VACUUM.
--
Bruce Momjian | http://www.op.net/~candle
pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us | (610) 853-3000
+ If your life is a hard drive, | 830 Blythe Avenue
+ Christ can be your backup. | Drexel Hill, Pennsylvania 19026
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Hiroshi Inoue | 2000-04-06 01:37:14 | RE: postgres crash on CURSORS |
Previous Message | Hiroshi Inoue | 2000-04-06 01:17:45 | RE: Index tuple count != heap tuple count problem identified |