From: | Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Jeff Janes <jeff(dot)janes(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: [PERFORM] Slow query: bitmap scan troubles |
Date: | 2013-01-06 18:22:33 |
Message-ID: | CA+U5nML7drGt_5k3X1jH0XLs+qyhsiT7xy0VRs2Nixm_DRdTUg@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers pgsql-performance |
On 6 January 2013 16:29, Jeff Janes <jeff(dot)janes(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> Worse, this over-punishment of bloat is more likely to penalize partial
> indexes. Since they are vacuumed on the table's schedule, not their own
> schedule, they likely get vacuumed less often relative to the amount of
> turn-over they experience and so have higher steady-state bloat. (I'm
> assuming the partial index is on the particularly hot rows, which I would
> expect is how partial indexes would generally be used)
That's an interesting thought. Thanks for noticing that.
--
Simon Riggs http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2013-01-06 18:58:40 | Re: [PERFORM] Slow query: bitmap scan troubles |
Previous Message | Simon Riggs | 2013-01-06 18:19:10 | Re: [PERFORM] Slow query: bitmap scan troubles |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2013-01-06 18:58:40 | Re: [PERFORM] Slow query: bitmap scan troubles |
Previous Message | Simon Riggs | 2013-01-06 18:19:10 | Re: [PERFORM] Slow query: bitmap scan troubles |