| From: | Marcos Pegoraro <marcos(at)f10(dot)com(dot)br> |
|---|---|
| To: | Álvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)alvh(dot)no-ip(dot)org> |
| Cc: | David Klika <david(dot)klika(at)atlas(dot)cz>, ah(at)cybertec(dot)at, jian(dot)universality(at)gmail(dot)com, pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org, mihailnikalayeu(at)gmail(dot)com, rob(at)xzilla(dot)net |
| Subject: | Re: Adding REPACK [concurrently] |
| Date: | 2025-12-04 17:47:56 |
| Message-ID: | CAB-JLwbvqNnTmgZsE3T-KbAOO5w04uwdeYfSVtdumPfdSG6NJQ@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Em qui., 4 de dez. de 2025 às 12:43, Álvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)alvh(dot)no-ip(dot)org>
escreveu:
> If you only have a small number of pages that have this problem, then
> you don't actually need to do anything -- the pages will be marked free
> by regular vacuuming, and future inserts or updates can make use of
> those pages. It's not a problem to have a small number of pages in
> empty state for some time.
>
> So if you're trying to do this, the number of problematic pages must be
> large.
Not necessarily. I have some tables where I like to use CLUSTER
every 2 or 3 months, to reorganize the data based on an index
and consequently load fewer pages with each call. These tables
don't have more than 2 or 3% of dead records, but they are quite
disorganized from the point of view of that index, since the
inserted and updated records don't follow the order I determined.
regards
Marcos
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Andres Freund | 2025-12-04 17:50:19 | Re: headerscheck ccache support |
| Previous Message | Álvaro Herrera | 2025-12-04 17:47:53 | Re: bt_index_parent_check and concurrently build indexes |