Re: Indirect indexes

On 10/18/2016 11:28 AM, Alvaro Herrera wrote:

> Vacuuming presents an additional challenge: in order to remove index
> items from an indirect index, it's critical to scan the PK index first
> and collect the PK values that are being removed.  Then scan the
> indirect index and remove any items that match the PK items removed.
> This is a bit problematic because of the additional memory needed to
> store the array of PK values.  I haven't implemented this yet.

As a whole I think the idea is interesting but the above scares me. Are 
we trading initial performance gains for performance degradation through 
maintenance? Since autovacuum is an indeterminate launch we could have a 
situation where even a medium level updated laden table becomes a source 
of contentions for IO and memory resources. I don't know that we would 
see issues on modern bare metal but considering our implementation space 
is places like RDS and GCE now, this is a serious consideration.

Sincerely,

JD

-- 
Command Prompt, Inc.                  http://the.postgres.company/                        +1-503-667-4564
PostgreSQL Centered full stack support, consulting and development.
Everyone appreciates your honesty, until you are honest with them.