| From: | Csaba Nagy <nagy(at)ecircle-ag(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | postgres hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Cc: | Gregory Stark <gsstark(at)mit(dot)edu>, ITAGAKI Takahiro <itagaki(dot)takahiro(at)oss(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp>, pgsql-patches(at)postgresql(dot)org, teramoto(dot)junji(at)lab(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp |
| Subject: | Re: [HACKERS] Resurrecting per-page cleaner for btree |
| Date: | 2006-07-26 15:49:25 |
| Message-ID: | 1153928965.22367.110.camel@coppola.muc.ecircle.de |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers pgsql-patches |
> [snip] (In fact, it's
> trivial to see how user-defined functions that are mislabeled immutable
> could make this fail.) So retail vacuum without any cross-check that
> you got all the index tuples is a scary proposition IMHO.
Wouldn't work to restrict that kind of vacuum to only tables which have
no indexes using user defined functions ? That would mean a very small
restriction I guess, probably 99.9% of the indexes won't use user
defined functions...
I actually wonder if such a vacuum would be useful for my scenario,
where I have some pretty big tables, and update a relatively small
percentage of it. Would it be faster to run such a vacuum against the
current one ?
One example would be a ~100 million table where I have 1-4 million
updates per day. Could I run vacuum multiple times a day for this table
and expect that individual runs are relatively fast ?
Cheers,
Csaba.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | andrew | 2006-07-26 15:52:33 | Re: pgbench enhancements |
| Previous Message | Tatsuo Ishii | 2006-07-26 15:42:03 | Re: pgbench enhancements |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2006-07-26 16:09:04 | Re: [HACKERS] Resurrecting per-page cleaner for btree |
| Previous Message | Albe Laurenz | 2006-07-26 15:33:52 | Re: LDAP lookup of connection parameters |