Re: Decent VACUUM (was: Buglist)

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Manfred Koizar <mkoi-pg(at)aon(dot)at>
Cc: Vivek Khera <khera(at)kcilink(dot)com>, pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Decent VACUUM (was: Buglist)
Date: 2003-08-21 21:56:02
Message-ID: 28813.1061502962@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-general pgsql-hackers

Manfred Koizar <mkoi-pg(at)aon(dot)at> writes:
> Good point. What about: Whenever a backend *deletes* a tuple it
> inserts a reference to its page into the RSM? Then an entry in the
> RSM doesn't necessarily mean that the referenced page has reclaimable
> space, but it would still be valueable information.

That might work if the RSM were lossless, but in practice I think it'd
have to be lossy, like the FSM. Which would mean that you'd still have
to do full-scan vacuums fairly regularly to make sure you hadn't
forgotten any freeable tuples. Conceivably it could be a win, though,
if you could do frequent "vacuum decent"s and only a full-scan vacuum
once in awhile (once a day maybe).

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-general by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Manfred Koizar 2003-08-21 22:24:39 Re: Decent VACUUM (was: Buglist)
Previous Message Manfred Koizar 2003-08-21 21:43:21 Re: Buglist

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Joe Conway 2003-08-21 22:01:46 Re: [SQL] "SELECT IN" Still Broken in 7.4b
Previous Message Frank van Vugt 2003-08-21 21:51:42 Re: postgresql 7.3.2 bug on date '1901-12-13' and '1901-12