From: | Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | Dmitry Samersoff <dms(at)wplus(dot)net>, Hiroshi Inoue <Inoue(at)tpf(dot)co(dot)jp>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgreSQL(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: [HACKERS] Index recreation in vacuum |
Date: | 2000-01-18 22:36:23 |
Message-ID: | 200001182236.RAA04121@candle.pha.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
> Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> writes:
> > The beauty of doing a temp index while keeping the old one is that you
> > can recover right away, and maybe allow the old index to be used while
> > you vacuum?
>
> Huh? You've got the whole table locked exclusively for the duration
> of the vacuum anyway.
>
> In fact, the instant that vacuum does its internal commit, the old index
> contents are actually *wrong*, and there is no possible value in keeping
> them after that. Might as well blow them away and recover the disk
> space for use in constructing the new indexes.
Oh, I thought the vacuum itself would use the index during processing.
>
> Also, I agree with Dmitry's concern about peak disk space usage. If
> we are rebuilding large btree indexes then we are going to see about a
> 2X-normal peak usage anyway, for the sort temp file and the new index.
> Making it 3X instead is just asking for trouble. Especially since,
> if you fail to rebuild the index, you are left with a corrupt index;
> it doesn't agree with the vacuumed table...
OK.
--
Bruce Momjian | http://www.op.net/~candle
pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us | (610) 853-3000
+ If your life is a hard drive, | 830 Blythe Avenue
+ Christ can be your backup. | Drexel Hill, Pennsylvania 19026
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Peter Eisentraut | 2000-01-18 23:28:10 | Re: [HACKERS] TODO list |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2000-01-18 22:32:55 | Re: [HACKERS] Index recreation in vacuum |