| From: | "Jim C(dot) Nasby" <jnasby(at)pervasive(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Wes <wespvp(at)syntegra(dot)com>, pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Excessive vacuum times |
| Date: | 2005-12-13 03:44:01 |
| Message-ID: | 20051213034401.GT54639@pervasive.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-general |
On Mon, Dec 12, 2005 at 06:26:37PM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> Wes <wespvp(at)syntegra(dot)com> writes:
> > The problem was determined to be due to the fact that indexes are vacuumed
> > in index order, not in disk storage order. I don't see anything about this
> > in the "What's new" for 8.1. Has anything been done to resolve this?
>
> No. Avoiding that would require a new approach to
> vacuum-vs-ordinary-indexscan interlocking, so it won't happen until
> someone has a Bright Idea (tm).
Plus there is a TODO to only vacuum pages that are known to have dead
tuples, which should hopefully mean no more index-scans during vacuum as
well. Hopefully this makes it into 8.2...
--
Jim C. Nasby, Sr. Engineering Consultant jnasby(at)pervasive(dot)com
Pervasive Software http://pervasive.com work: 512-231-6117
vcard: http://jim.nasby.net/pervasive.vcf cell: 512-569-9461
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2005-12-13 04:07:58 | Re: [GENERAL] missing something obvious about intervals? |
| Previous Message | Jim C. Nasby | 2005-12-13 03:39:46 | Re: [GENERAL] missing something obvious about intervals? |