| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | "Pavan Deolasee" <pavan(dot)deolasee(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | "Simon Riggs" <simon(at)2ndquadrant(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 14:10:13 |
| Message-ID: | 18274.1187100613@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
"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.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Andrew Dunstan | 2007-08-14 14:13:20 | Re: Testing the async-commit patch |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2007-08-14 14:07:57 | Re: HOT patch, missing things |