| From: | Justin Pryzby <pryzby(at)telsasoft(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Alexander Korotkov <a(dot)korotkov(at)postgrespro(dot)ru> |
| Cc: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Teodor Sigaev <teodor(at)sigaev(dot)ru>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: doc fixes: vacuum_cleanup_index_scale_factor |
| Date: | 2018-05-08 11:05:42 |
| Message-ID: | 20180508110542.GJ5192@telsasoft.com |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
3rd iteration ; thanks for bearing with me.
On Tue, May 08, 2018 at 12:35:00PM +0300, Alexander Korotkov wrote:
> Hi, Justin!
>
> Thank you for revising documentation patch.
>
> On Mon, May 7, 2018 at 7:55 PM, Justin Pryzby <pryzby(at)telsasoft(dot)com> wrote:
+ In order to detect stale index statistics, the number of total heap
+ tuples during previous statistics collection is stored in the index
+ meta-page.
Consider removing: "during previous statistics collection"
Or: "during THE previous statistics collection"
+ Once the number of inserted tuples since previous
since THE previous
+ statistics collection is more than
+ <varname>vacuum_cleanup_index_scale_factor</varname> fraction of
Since the multiplier can be greater than 1, should we say "multiple" instead of
fraction?
+ during <command>VACUUM</command> cycle. Thus, skipping of the B-tree
+ index scan during cleanup stage is only possible when second and
+ subsequent <command>VACUUM</command> cycles detecting no dead tuples.
Change "detecting" to "detect". Or maybe just "find"
Justin
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Andrew Gierth | 2018-05-08 11:23:13 | Re: Bug Report: Error caused due to wrong ordering of filters |
| Previous Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2018-05-08 10:58:32 | Re: [HACKERS] WIP Patch: Pgbench Serialization and deadlock errors |