From: | "Jim C(dot) Nasby" <jnasby(at)pervasive(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Dawid Kuroczko <qnex42(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Automatic free space map filling |
Date: | 2006-05-02 15:49:57 |
Message-ID: | 20060502154957.GL97354@pervasive.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Mon, May 01, 2006 at 10:24:50PM +0200, Dawid Kuroczko wrote:
> VACUUM table WHERE some_col > now()-'1 hour'::interval;
>
> I.e. Let vacuum run "piggyback" on some index. This would allow
> for a quick vacuum of a fraction of a large table. Especially when
> the table is large, and only some data (new data) are being modified.
>
> The vacuum for such a table would:
> 1. scan the index accoriding to the where criteria and create bitmap
> of blocks to look at.
> 2. go through these blocks and vacuum them.
>
> Hmm, another perhaps silly idea -- a special index kind for tracking
> tuple deaths. Ie -- something like whenever tuple is updated/deleted,
> insert an entry into such index, using last session the tuple is visible
> for as a key. Then, perhaps, vacuum could scan such an index and
> find tuples which are candidates for removal. I lack the knowledge of
> PostgreSQL's internals, so forgive me if I am writing something
> completely insane. :)
There is a TODO to create a 'dead space map' which would cover #2 and
probably eliminate any use for #1.
--
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 | Jim C. Nasby | 2006-05-02 17:00:42 | Re: Is a SERIAL column a "black box", or not? |
Previous Message | Zeugswetter Andreas DCP SD | 2006-05-02 15:00:58 | Re: XLOG_BLCKSZ vs. wal_buffers table |