Re: Subject: bool / vacuum full bug followup part 2

Tom Lane wrote:
> Scott Marlowe <scott.marlowe@ihs.com> writes:
> > And reclaimed the space.  Is that the official way, short of dropping and
> > recreating an index to reclaim its space?  Is there a plan to make vacuum
> > reclaim unused space in indexes?
>
> Yes, and yes, but don't hold your breath on the latter part --- that
> TODO item has been around for awhile.  And it's gotten harder now that
> we have lazy VACUUM; that means we need to be able to condense indexes
> concurrently with other index operations.

Can you remind me why it is so hard to fix this.  I do not expect lazy
vacuum to handle index shrinking, but it should be possible with full
vacuum.

> AFAIK there's not a big problem with index growth if the range of index
> keys remains reasonably static.  The problem comes in if you have a
> range of values that keeps growing (eg, you are indexing a SERIAL or
> timestamp column).  The right end of the btree keeps growing, but
> there's no mechanism to collapse out no-longer-used space at the left
> end.

I must say I am embarrased by our failure to shrink all indexes.  I
haven't said this before because no one has complained.

I am sure lots of people are affected by this, but few realize it
because few analyze did space.

--
  Bruce Momjian                        |  http://candle.pha.pa.us
  pgman@candle.pha.pa.us               |  (610) 853-3000
  +  If your life is a hard drive,     |  830 Blythe Avenue
  +  Christ can be your backup.        |  Drexel Hill, Pennsylvania 19026