| From: | "scott(dot)marlowe" <scott(dot)marlowe(at)ihs(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Robert Treat <xzilla(at)users(dot)sourceforge(dot)net> |
| Cc: | Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com>, <pgsql-advocacy(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Subject: | Re: Press Release |
| Date: | 2003-10-29 23:03:50 |
| Message-ID: | Pine.LNX.4.33.0310291602220.22178-100000@css120.ihs.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-advocacy |
On 29 Oct 2003, Robert Treat wrote:
> On Wed, 2003-10-29 at 17:24, Josh Berkus wrote:
> > If anybody has evidence that the FSM index management doens't work, then we'll
> > cut the paragraph. However, I'm inclined to trust Tom & Co., and my only
> > simple tests seemed to uphold the Lazy-Vacuum-ability of indexes.
>
> Tom has laid out at least one case where the potential for index growth
> exits, though I don't see it in a quick search of the archives...
>
> Tom, can you weigh in here?
I thought that was more the case where indexes may be up to 33% larger
than they would be if they were created staticly, but no more. Or
something like that. If the possible maximum size of a vacuumed index is
1/3 or so greater than the most compact size, I wouldn't consider that
bloated. not like the old way, where you'd have tons of dead nodes in the
btree index.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Joshua D. Drake | 2003-10-29 23:04:04 | Re: Press Release |
| Previous Message | Robert Treat | 2003-10-29 22:59:34 | Re: Press Release |