From: | "Simon Riggs" <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | "Tom Lane" <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | "Pavan Deolasee" <pavan(dot)deolasee(at)gmail(dot)com>, "Heikki Linnakangas" <heikki(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, "Pavan Deolasee" <pavan(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, "PostgreSQL-development" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: HOT patch, missing things |
Date: | 2007-08-14 14:34:59 |
Message-ID: | 1187102099.4162.20.camel@ebony.site |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, 2007-08-14 at 10:10 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> "Pavan Deolasee" <pavan(dot)deolasee(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> > What if we just track the amount of potentially dead space in the
> > relation
> > (somebody had suggested that earlier in the thread) ? Every committed
> > UPDATE/DELETE and aborted UPDATE/INSERT would increment
> > the dead space. Whenever page fragmentation is repaired, either during
> > normal operation or during vacuum, the dead space is reduced by the
> > amount of reclaimed space. Autovacuum triggers whenever the percentage
> > of dead space increases beyond a threshold.
>
> Doesn't this design completely fail to take index bloat into account?
> Repairing heap fragmentation does not reduce the need for VACUUM to work
> on the indexes.
I thought of that, but we will only clean up space that is allowable, so
the indexes don't degrade.
--
Simon Riggs
EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Josh Berkus | 2007-08-14 14:37:25 | Re: Testing the async-commit patch |
Previous Message | Gregory Stark | 2007-08-14 14:30:41 | Re: HOT patch, missing things |