Re: Idea for vacuuming

From: Greg Stark <gsstark(at)mit(dot)edu>
To: Jim Nasby <decibel(at)decibel(dot)org>
Cc: Joseph Shraibman <jks(at)selectacast(dot)net>, pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Idea for vacuuming
Date: 2006-06-23 20:34:00
Message-ID: 87zmg3y5l3.fsf@stark.xeocode.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-general

Jim Nasby <decibel(at)decibel(dot)org> writes:

> > My RFE: When vacuuming a table, pg should try to vacuum the primary key
> > first. If that results in 0 recovered entries, then assume the table has no
> > updates/deletes and skip the rest of that table.

That makes no sense. Vacuum starts by scanning the table itself, not the
indexes. It only goes to the indexes after it has found tuples that need
cleaning up. There's nothing to look at in the indexes that would tell it
whether there are any tuples to clean up.

--
greg

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-general by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2006-06-23 23:16:56 Re: [GENERAL] Out of memory error in 8.1.0 Win32
Previous Message Marco Bizzarri 2006-06-23 18:58:39 Re: Documentation of the Front End/Back End Protocol for Large Objects