| From: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)atentus(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Justin Clift <justin(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Cc: | PostgreSQL Hackers Mailing List <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: How to REINDEX in high volume environments? |
| Date: | 2002-09-28 15:02:30 |
| Message-ID: | Pine.LNX.4.44.0209281057330.11131-100000@alvh.no-ip.org |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Justin Clift dijo:
Hi,
> Ran a benchmark against the database, REINDEX'd the tables, VACUUM FULL
> ANALYZE'd, prepared to re-run the benchmark again and guess what?
>
> The indexes were back on the original drive.
Yes, this is expected. Same for CLUSTER. They create a different
filenode and point the relation (table or index) at it.
I think the separate space for indexes is a good idea. However, and
this is orthogonal, I feel the way REINDEX works now is not the best,
because it precludes you from using the index while you are doing it.
I'm trying to implement a way to concurrently compact the indexes.
I hope to have it for 7.4.
--
Alvaro Herrera (<alvherre[a]atentus.com>)
Y una voz del caos me hablo y me dijo
"Sonrie y se feliz, podria ser peor".
Y sonrei. Y fui feliz.
Y fue peor.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2002-09-28 15:05:45 | Re: making use of large TLB pages |
| Previous Message | Magnus Naeslund(f) | 2002-09-28 15:02:00 | Vacuum from within a function crashes backend |