Re: Another question on indexes (drop and recreate)
От | Yves Vindevogel |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Another question on indexes (drop and recreate) |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 09f30bc29a91c94eecaf7f70aa0c8399@implements.be обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: Another question on indexes (drop and recreate) (John A Meinel <john@arbash-meinel.com>) |
Ответы |
Re: Another question on indexes (drop and recreate)
|
Список | pgsql-performance |
I only add records, and most of the values are "random" Except the columns for dates, .... On 21 Jun 2005, at 17:49, John A Meinel wrote: <excerpt>Yves Vindevogel wrote: <excerpt>And, after let's say a week, would that index still be optimal or would it be a good idea to drop it in the weekend and recreate it. </excerpt> It depends a little bit on the postgres version you are using. If you are only ever adding to the table, and you are not updating it or deleting from it, I think the index is always optimal. Once you start deleting from it there are a few cases where older versions would not properly re-use the empty entries, requiring a REINDEX. (Deleting low numbers and always adding high numbers was one of the cases) However, I believe that as long as you vacuum often enough, so that the system knows where the unused entries are, you don't ever have to drop and re-create the index. John =:-> </excerpt>Met vriendelijke groeten, Bien à vous, Kind regards, <bold>Yves Vindevogel</bold> <bold>Implements</bold> <smaller> </smaller>I only add records, and most of the values are "random" Except the columns for dates, .... On 21 Jun 2005, at 17:49, John A Meinel wrote: > Yves Vindevogel wrote: > >> And, after let's say a week, would that index still be optimal or >> would it be a good idea to drop it in the weekend and recreate it. > > > It depends a little bit on the postgres version you are using. If you > are only ever adding to the table, and you are not updating it or > deleting from it, I think the index is always optimal. > Once you start deleting from it there are a few cases where older > versions would not properly re-use the empty entries, requiring a > REINDEX. (Deleting low numbers and always adding high numbers was one > of > the cases) > > However, I believe that as long as you vacuum often enough, so that the > system knows where the unused entries are, you don't ever have to drop > and re-create the index. > > John > =:-> > > Met vriendelijke groeten, Bien à vous, Kind regards, Yves Vindevogel Implements <smaller> Mail: yves.vindevogel@implements.be - Mobile: +32 (478) 80 82 91 Kempische Steenweg 206 - 3500 Hasselt - Tel-Fax: +32 (11) 43 55 76 Web: http://www.implements.be <italic><x-tad-smaller> First they ignore you. Then they laugh at you. Then they fight you. Then you win. Mahatma Ghandi.</x-tad-smaller></italic></smaller> Mail: yves.vindevogel@implements.be - Mobile: +32 (478) 80 82 91 Kempische Steenweg 206 - 3500 Hasselt - Tel-Fax: +32 (11) 43 55 76 Web: http://www.implements.be First they ignore you. Then they laugh at you. Then they fight you. Then you win. Mahatma Ghandi.
Вложения
В списке pgsql-performance по дате отправления: