| From: | "Jim C(dot) Nasby" <jim(at)nasby(dot)net> |
|---|---|
| To: | Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Gregory Stark <stark(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Galy Lee <lee(dot)galy(at)oss(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Resumable vacuum proposal and design overview |
| Date: | 2007-03-01 15:10:32 |
| Message-ID: | 20070301151031.GI15006@nasby.net |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Wed, Feb 28, 2007 at 10:14:24PM +0000, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
> cache instead. In the index scan phase, it's randomly accessed, but if
> the table is clustered, it's in fact not completely random access. In
> the 2nd vacuum pass, the array is scanned sequentially again. I'm not
Only if there's only one index on the table... otherwise I'd argue that
you're much less likely to be searching the TID list incrementally.
--
Jim Nasby jim(at)nasby(dot)net
EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com 512.569.9461 (cell)
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Heikki Linnakangas | 2007-03-01 15:11:11 | Re: Resumable vacuum proposal and design overview |
| Previous Message | Hannu Krosing | 2007-03-01 14:54:44 | Re: Revitalising VACUUM FULL for 8.3 |