| From: | Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | "Jim C(dot) Nasby" <jim(at)nasby(dot)net> |
| Cc: | Gregory Stark <stark(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Galy Lee <lee(dot)galy(at)oss(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Resumable vacuum proposal and design overview |
| Date: | 2007-03-01 15:11:11 |
| Message-ID: | 45E6ED0F.5030104@enterprisedb.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Jim C. Nasby wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 28, 2007 at 10:14:24PM +0000, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
>> cache instead. In the index scan phase, it's randomly accessed, but if
>> the table is clustered, it's in fact not completely random access. In
>> the 2nd vacuum pass, the array is scanned sequentially again. I'm not
>
> Only if there's only one index on the table... otherwise I'd argue that
> you're much less likely to be searching the TID list incrementally.
Yeah, sure.
--
Heikki Linnakangas
EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Pavan Deolasee | 2007-03-01 15:12:46 | Re: HOT - preliminary results |
| Previous Message | Jim C. Nasby | 2007-03-01 15:10:32 | Re: Resumable vacuum proposal and design overview |