Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: sequence indexes

From: Hannu Krosing <hannu(at)tm(dot)ee>
To: mlw <markw(at)mohawksoft(dot)com>
Cc: Justin Clift <justin(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Zeugswetter Andreas SB SD <ZeugswetterA(at)spardat(dot)at>, Vince Vielhaber <vev(at)michvhf(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: sequence indexes
Date: 2002-01-29 07:34:04
Message-ID: (view raw, whole thread or download thread mbox)
Lists: pgsql-hackers
mlw wrote:
> Could one run a postgresql process in a lower priority process and
> perform lazy vacuums without affecting performance all that much?

One must be very careful not to introduce reverse priority problems -
i.e. a 
lower priority process locking some resource and then not letting go
higher priority processes are blocked from running due to needing that

In my tests 1 vacuum process slowed down 100 concurrent pgbench
by ~2 times.

> A live index compaction can be done by indexing the table with a
> temporary name rename the old index, rename the new index to the old
> name, and drop the old index.

Isn't this what REINDEX command does ?


In response to


pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Christopher Kings-LynneDate: 2002-01-29 07:42:59
Subject: timing queries
Previous:From: Hiroshi InoueDate: 2002-01-29 07:18:14
Subject: Re: Improving backend launch time by preloading relcache

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2017 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group