From: | Gregory Stark <stark(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(dot)linnakangas(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> |
Cc: | Teodor Sigaev <teodor(at)sigaev(dot)ru>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Pgsql Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: [PATCHES] GIN improvements |
Date: | 2008-11-27 22:14:59 |
Message-ID: | 87iqq8n7do.fsf@oxford.xeocode.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers pgsql-patches |
Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(dot)linnakangas(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> writes:
> I think we need a hard limit on the number of list pages, before we can
> consider accepting this patch. After the limit is full, the next inserter can
> flush the list, inserting the tuples in the list into the tree, or just fall
> back to regular, slow, inserts.
I do like the idea of having the work fall to vacuum though. Perhaps we need
some way for autovacuum to ask an access method what shape an index is in and
whether it needs vacuuming? Or more likely a separate command from vacuum that
specifically cleans up an index.
--
Gregory Stark
EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com
Ask me about EnterpriseDB's On-Demand Production Tuning
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Robert Haas | 2008-11-27 22:15:04 | Re: Simple postgresql.conf wizard |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2008-11-27 21:49:23 | Re: Nested Loop Left Join always shows rows=1 |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2008-11-28 00:22:35 | Re: [PATCHES] GIN improvements |
Previous Message | Heikki Linnakangas | 2008-11-27 20:36:41 | Re: [PATCHES] GIN improvements |