Re: really lazy vacuums?

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: really lazy vacuums?
Date: 2011-03-15 00:00:09
Message-ID: 4781.1300147209@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> On Mon, Mar 14, 2011 at 4:18 PM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
>> Um, if there are *no* dead tuples then we don't look at the indexes
>> anyway ...

> But you do still have to scan the heap twice.

Seems like that should be fixable ... is the second pass actually
going to do anything?

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Josh Berkus 2011-03-15 00:27:29 Re: Better estimates of index correlation
Previous Message Nikhil Sontakke 2011-03-14 23:42:04 Re: Fwd: index corruption in PG 8.3.13