| From: | Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Scott Marlowe <scott(dot)marlowe(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Rafael Martinez <r(dot)m(dot)guerrero(at)usit(dot)uio(dot)no>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Need to run CLUSTER to keep performance |
| Date: | 2007-11-12 18:03:16 |
| Message-ID: | 47389564.6010602@enterprisedb.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-performance |
Scott Marlowe wrote:
> On Nov 12, 2007 11:01 AM, Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> wrote:
>> Scott Marlowe wrote:
>>> So, between the first and second vacuum you had a long running
>>> transaction that finally ended and let you clean up the dead rows.
>> No, before 8.3, CLUSTER throws away non-removable dead tuples. So the
>> long running transaction might still be there.
>
> Wow, good to know. Why would it have changed in 8.3? Was it
> considered broken behaviour?
I certainly considered it broken, though it was a known issue all along.
--
Heikki Linnakangas
EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Dave Cramer | 2007-11-12 18:32:34 | Re: difference between a unique constraint and a unique index ??? |
| Previous Message | Scott Marlowe | 2007-11-12 17:04:44 | Re: Need to run CLUSTER to keep performance |