Re: vacuum vs vacuum full

From: Ravi Krishna <srkrishna(at)yahoo(dot)com>
To: Paul Förster <paul(dot)foerster(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: Cybertec Schönig & Schönig GmbH <laurenz(dot)albe(at)cybertec(dot)at>, Thomas Kellerer <shammat(at)gmx(dot)net>, PG List <pgsql-general(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: vacuum vs vacuum full
Date: 2020-11-18 14:30:28
Message-ID: 3C986184-C865-4069-B9D7-CA0580222080@yahoo.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-general

>
> Experience shows that global index in Oracle lead to problems when dropping a partition. rebuilding an index, or other such nice administrative stuff, often leading to unnecessarily long downtimes.
>
>

I think Oracle fixed it later by allowing asynchronous update of global index after the detachment of partition.

ALTER TABLE TABLE_NAME DROP PARTITION PARTITION_NAME UPDATE INDEXES;

will immediately start maintenance of global index by cleaning it up asynchronously, while the index is marked valid and can be used by the applications.

DB2 also has the same feature for a long time and it works fine.

I am sure there are genuine use cases of global indexes.

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-general by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message David G. Johnston 2020-11-18 14:40:43 Re: How to select values in a JSON type of column?
Previous Message Paul Förster 2020-11-18 13:56:30 Re: vacuum vs vacuum full