From: | Scott Marlowe <scott(dot)marlowe(at)ihs(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | <pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Subject: bool / vacuum full bug followup part 2 |
Date: | 2002-05-06 19:34:56 |
Message-ID: | Pine.LNX.4.33.0205061334300.15514-100000@css120.ihs.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-general |
On Mon, 6 May 2002, Scott Marlowe wrote:
> On Fri, 3 May 2002, Tom Lane wrote:
>
> > Scott Marlowe <scott(dot)marlowe(at)ihs(dot)com> writes:
> > > On Fri, 3 May 2002, Tom Lane wrote:
> > >> Scott Marlowe <scott(dot)marlowe(at)ihs(dot)com> writes:
> > > Well, my keys aren't changing and the index is growing like they are.
> > >>
> > >> Could we see the exact details of your test case?
> >
> > > Sure. I think I posted most of it here already...
> >
> > Okay, what I see is that the index on the integer column behaves like I
> > would expect: you can update, vacuum, update, vacuum, and it doesn't get
> > bigger.
>
> Yes, it does get bigger, but only with use, not vacuum full.
>
> It doesn't look like the index on the text column is getting reused
> either. Is that because I'm update a lot of rows with a single update
> statement? would it be reused if I was changing one row at a time and
> commiting it?
Correction, that should be "index on the int4 column"
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Fran Fabrizio | 2002-05-06 19:50:34 | Re: Relation on longer exists error |
Previous Message | frank_lupo@email.it | 2002-05-06 19:33:29 | count problem |