| From: | "Jeremy Haile" <jhaile(at)fastmail(dot)fm> |
|---|---|
| To: | "Tom Lane" <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, "Ed L(dot)" <pgsql(at)bluepolka(dot)net> |
| Cc: | "Csaba Nagy" <nagy(at)ecircle-ag(dot)com>, "Postgres general mailing list" <pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org>, "Bill Moran" <wmoran(at)collaborativefusion(dot)com>, "Alvaro Herrera" <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com> |
| Subject: | Re: Index bloat of 4x |
| Date: | 2007-01-19 19:03:28 |
| Message-ID: | 1169233408.21922.1170154897@webmail.messagingengine.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-general |
Is it feasible to add a "reindex concurrently" that doesn't lock the
table for the rebuild, then locks the table when doing a second pass to
pickup rows that were changed after the first pass? Or something like
that....
On Fri, 19 Jan 2007 12:45:03 -0500, "Tom Lane" <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> said:
> "Ed L." <pgsql(at)bluepolka(dot)net> writes:
> > Online index creation definitely helps us toward 24x7. But
> > wouldn't we still have to drop the old index, thus blocking
> > production queries?
>
> Yes, but only for a very short period.
>
> regards, tom lane
>
> ---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
> TIP 6: explain analyze is your friend
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Scott Ribe | 2007-01-19 19:12:57 | Re: Spam from EnterpriseDB? |
| Previous Message | Merlin Moncure | 2007-01-19 19:02:16 | Re: Clearing plans |