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

Re: Reducing relation locking overhead

From: Greg Stark <gsstark(at)mit(dot)edu>
To: Christopher Kings-Lynne <chriskl(at)familyhealth(dot)com(dot)au>
Cc: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Reducing relation locking overhead
Date: 2005-12-02 06:44:08
Message-ID: (view raw, whole thread or download thread mbox)
Lists: pgsql-hackers
Christopher Kings-Lynne <chriskl(at)familyhealth(dot)com(dot)au> writes:

> Surely in the real world REINDEX is run so rarely compared to all those other
> operations it'd be a win...

It's not a question of frequency. We're not talking about something like a 10%
performance loss. You're talking about whether REINDEX is useful at all.
Consider installations where REINDEX will require shutting down business
critical operations for days...

It was a *major* new feature that many people were waiting for when Oracle
finally implemented live CREATE INDEX and REINDEX. The ability to run create
an index without blocking any operations on a table, even updates, was
absolutely critical for 24x7 operation.


In response to


pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Trent ShipleyDate: 2005-12-02 07:06:28
Subject: Re: generalizing the planner knobs
Previous:From: Greg StarkDate: 2005-12-02 06:40:06
Subject: Re: Fork-based version of pgbench

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