Re: Excessive vacuum times

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: "Jim C(dot) Nasby" <jnasby(at)pervasive(dot)com>
Cc: Wes <wespvp(at)syntegra(dot)com>, pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Excessive vacuum times
Date: 2005-12-13 04:09:01
Message-ID: 2138.1134446941@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-general

"Jim C. Nasby" <jnasby(at)pervasive(dot)com> writes:
> On Mon, Dec 12, 2005 at 06:26:37PM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
>> No. Avoiding that would require a new approach to
>> vacuum-vs-ordinary-indexscan interlocking, so it won't happen until
>> someone has a Bright Idea (tm).

> Plus there is a TODO to only vacuum pages that are known to have dead
> tuples, which should hopefully mean no more index-scans during vacuum as
> well.

No such luck. You delete any tuples, you need to scan the indexes.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-general by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2005-12-13 04:17:51 Re: Memory Leakage Problem
Previous Message Tom Lane 2005-12-13 04:07:58 Re: [GENERAL] missing something obvious about intervals?