Re: [HACKERS] Re: vacuum timings

From: Dmitry Samersoff <dms(at)wplus(dot)net>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Re: vacuum timings
Date: 2000-01-21 19:48:50
Message-ID: 3888B822.28F79A1F@wplus.net
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Tom Lane wrote:
>
> Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> writes:
> > Conclusions:
> > o indexes never get smaller
>
> Which we knew...
>
> > o drop/recreate index is slower than vacuum of indexes
>
> Quite a few people have reported finding the opposite in practice.

I'm one of them. On 1,5 GB table with three indices it about twice
slowly.
Probably becouse vacuuming indices brakes system cache policy.
(FreeBSD 3.3)

--
Dmitry Samersoff, DM\S
dms(at)wplus(dot)net http://devnull.wplus.net
* there will come soft rains

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Bruce Momjian 2000-01-21 19:54:21 Re: [HACKERS] Re: vacuum timings
Previous Message Patrick Welche 2000-01-21 19:06:59 Re: [HACKERS] Re: [GENERAL] Variable case database names