| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Vince Vielhaber <vev(at)michvhf(dot)com> |
| Cc: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: sequence indexes |
| Date: | 2002-01-25 20:56:05 |
| Message-ID: | 5377.1011992165@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Vince Vielhaber <vev(at)michvhf(dot)com> writes:
> A bit much diskspace for that, isn't it? The data turns over alot.
Yeah, this is one of the scenarios where we desperately need index
compaction. The index pages holding the lower serial numbers are
no doubt empty or nearly so, but there's no mechanism for reclaiming
that space short of rebuilding the index. (BTW you might consider
REINDEX instead of a manual drop/recreate.)
I've looked at the problem a little bit --- there's literature more
recent than Lehmann-Yao that talks about how to do btree compaction
without losing concurrency. But it didn't get done for 7.2.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Vince Vielhaber | 2002-01-25 21:00:03 | Re: sequence indexes |
| Previous Message | Bill Studenmund | 2002-01-25 20:50:26 | Re: RFD: schemas and different kinds of Postgres objects |