From: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | Jeff Davis <pgsql(at)j-davis(dot)com>, Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, Patches <pgsql-patches(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Synchronized scans |
Date: | 2007-06-11 01:49:27 |
Message-ID: | 20070611014927.GB7661@alvh.no-ip.org |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-patches |
Tom Lane wrote:
> Jeff Davis <pgsql(at)j-davis(dot)com> writes:
> > I'm sure this has been brought up before, does someone have a pointer to
> > a discussion about doing VACUUM-like work in a sequential scan?
>
> Yeah, it's been discussed before; try looking for "incremental vacuum"
> and such phrases.
>
> The main stumbling block is cleaning out index entries for the
> known-dead heap tuple. The current VACUUM design amortizes that cost
> across as many dead heap tuples as it can manage; doing it retail seems
> inevitably to be a lot more expensive.
Maybe what we could do is have a seqscan save known-dead tuple IDs in a
file, and then in a different operation (initiated by autovacuum) we
would remove those TIDs from indexes, before the regular heap scan.
--
Alvaro Herrera http://www.CommandPrompt.com/
The PostgreSQL Company - Command Prompt, Inc.
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | ITAGAKI Takahiro | 2007-06-11 06:27:48 | Re: Controlling Load Distributed Checkpoints |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2007-06-11 01:39:58 | Re: Synchronized scans |