Re: Killing dead index tuples before they get vacuumed

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Jan Wieck <janwieck(at)yahoo(dot)com>
Cc: Hannu Krosing <hannu(at)tm(dot)ee>, Zeugswetter Andreas SB SD <ZeugswetterA(at)spardat(dot)at>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Killing dead index tuples before they get vacuumed
Date: 2002-05-22 15:47:48
Message-ID: 5191.1022082468@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Jan Wieck <janwieck(at)yahoo(dot)com> writes:
> Also, in btree haven't we had some problems with index page
> splits when using entries large enought so that not at least
> 3 of them fit on a page?

Right, that's why I said that the limit would only go up to ~10K anyway;
btree won't take keys > 1/3 page.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2002-05-22 16:19:20 Internal state in sequence.c is a bad idea
Previous Message Jan Wieck 2002-05-22 15:35:42 Re: Killing dead index tuples before they get vacuumed