From: | Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Automatic free space map filling |
Date: | 2006-03-01 16:57:09 |
Message-ID: | 200603011657.k21Gv9C00129@candle.pha.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Tom Lane wrote:
> Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> writes:
> > I'm not sure if I made myself clear. The idea is that you fill the free-space
> > map early with opportunitistic entries in the hope that most updates and
> > deletes go through "soon". That is, these entries will be invalid for a
> > short time but hopefully by the time another write looks at them, the entries
> > will have become valid. That way you don't actually have to run vacuum on
> > these deleted rows.
>
> How does an optimistic FSM entry avoid the need to run vacuum? All that
> will happen is that some backend will visit the page and not find usable
> free space.
Because the index isn't removed, right? That index thing is what
usually kills us.
--
Bruce Momjian http://candle.pha.pa.us
SRA OSS, Inc. http://www.sraoss.com
+ If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. +
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Simon Riggs | 2006-03-01 17:02:45 | Re: Vacuum dead tuples that are "between" transactions |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2006-03-01 16:47:49 | Re: statement_cost_limit |