| From: | Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)heroku(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | 大塚憲司 <otsuka(dot)kenji(at)nttcom(dot)co(dot)jp>, pgsql-docs(at)postgresql(dot)org, Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: [DOCS] The number of bytes is stored in index_size of pgstatindex() ? |
| Date: | 2016-02-19 00:29:31 |
| Message-ID: | CAM3SWZR5X+8QbUUh2xUuNJ8gPe7cm9Lr9CtEQafxkJoqQn-7+g@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-docs pgsql-hackers |
On Thu, Feb 18, 2016 at 4:15 PM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> Because they've been removed from the right-link/left-link chains.
That isn't the same thing as being inaccessible by scans, clearly
(just what you call the "leaf scan sequence"). Besides, half-dead
pages still have right-link/left-link chains, and there are usage
patterns where half-dead pages might accumulate.
--
Peter Geoghegan
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2016-02-19 00:53:53 | Re: [HACKERS] The number of bytes is stored in index_size of pgstatindex() ? |
| Previous Message | Bruce Momjian | 2016-02-19 00:19:57 | effective_io_concurrency and SSDs |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Amit Langote | 2016-02-19 00:35:29 | Re: about google summer of code 2016 |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2016-02-19 00:15:22 | Re: [DOCS] The number of bytes is stored in index_size of pgstatindex() ? |