| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Scott Marlowe <scott(dot)marlowe(at)ihs(dot)com> |
| Cc: | pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Subject: bool / vacuum full bug followup part 2 |
| Date: | 2002-05-03 19:47:54 |
| Message-ID: | 15296.1020455274@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-general |
Scott Marlowe <scott(dot)marlowe(at)ihs(dot)com> writes:
> And reclaimed the space. Is that the official way, short of dropping and
> recreating an index to reclaim its space? Is there a plan to make vacuum
> reclaim unused space in indexes?
Yes, and yes, but don't hold your breath on the latter part --- that
TODO item has been around for awhile. And it's gotten harder now that
we have lazy VACUUM; that means we need to be able to condense indexes
concurrently with other index operations.
AFAIK there's not a big problem with index growth if the range of index
keys remains reasonably static. The problem comes in if you have a
range of values that keeps growing (eg, you are indexing a SERIAL or
timestamp column). The right end of the btree keeps growing, but
there's no mechanism to collapse out no-longer-used space at the left
end.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Paul M Foster | 2002-05-03 20:08:35 | Re: Foxpro |
| Previous Message | Uros Gruber | 2002-05-03 19:27:55 | Re: problem with RULEs |