| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | "Kevin Grittner" <Kevin(dot)Grittner(at)wicourts(dot)gov> |
| Cc: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgreSQL(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Tweaking the planner's heuristics for small/empty tables |
| Date: | 2011-07-13 14:59:36 |
| Message-ID: | 4388.1310569176@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
"Kevin Grittner" <Kevin(dot)Grittner(at)wicourts(dot)gov> writes:
> Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
>> Another thing that struck me while looking at the code is that the
>> curpages clamp is applied to indexes too, which seems like a
>> thinko. A table occupying a few pages wouldn't likely have an
>> index as big as the table itself is.
> But not zero pages, either.
Huh? I think you misread the test. Keep in mind that the starting
value of curpages is the actual current size of the relation (as
reported by lseek(SEEK_END)). The clamp action is triggering if
pg_class.relpages is zero, indicating (approximately) that we've never
yet run vacuum on the relation.
BTW, in some quick testing it seems like a newly-created index will
start out with relpages nonzero anyway, making the point moot; so adding
a relkind test here is really more documentation than anything else.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2011-07-13 15:26:37 | Re: Deferred partial/expression unique constraints |
| Previous Message | Kevin Grittner | 2011-07-13 14:06:25 | Re: Tweaking the planner's heuristics for small/empty tables |