| From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)bowt(dot)ie> |
| Cc: | Dilip Kumar <dilipbalaut(at)gmail(dot)com>, Masahiko Sawada <sawada(dot)mshk(at)gmail(dot)com>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: decoupling table and index vacuum |
| Date: | 2022-02-08 17:32:57 |
| Message-ID: | CA+TgmoZ+aGasm3Sx9q7VOHmuTENgsLXhSjHax386OJakkHTL0w@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, Feb 8, 2022 at 12:12 PM Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)bowt(dot)ie> wrote:
> I believe that the main benefit of the dead TID conveyor belt (outside
> of global index use cases) will be to enable us to do more (much more)
> index vacuuming for one index in particular. So it's not really about
> doing less index vacuuming or less heap vacuuming -- it's about doing
> a *greater* amount of *useful* index vacuuming, in less time. There is
> often some way in which failing to vacuum one index for a long time
> does lasting damage to the index structure.
This makes sense to me, and I think it's a good insight.
It's not clear to me that we have enough information to make good
decisions about which indexes to vacuum and which indexes to skip.
--
Robert Haas
EDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Peter Geoghegan | 2022-02-08 17:50:25 | Re: decoupling table and index vacuum |
| Previous Message | Peter Geoghegan | 2022-02-08 17:12:19 | Re: decoupling table and index vacuum |