Re: Surprising dead_tuple_count from pgstattuple
| От | Robert Haas |
|---|---|
| Тема | Re: Surprising dead_tuple_count from pgstattuple |
| Дата | |
| Msg-id | AANLkTi=Hq+Xtkm0hqyST32RuwSum-SDuM6DjOy8vmKGQ@mail.gmail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
| Ответ на | Re: Surprising dead_tuple_count from pgstattuple (Simon Riggs <simon@2ndQuadrant.com>) |
| Ответы |
Re: Surprising dead_tuple_count from pgstattuple
|
| Список | pgsql-hackers |
On Mon, Aug 9, 2010 at 1:50 PM, Simon Riggs <simon@2ndquadrant.com> wrote: > On Sat, 2010-08-07 at 16:11 -0700, Gordon Shannon wrote: > >> So, I guess my real question here is, what happened to the "missing" >> 100 items? If it was HOT prune, can anyone summarize what that does? > > Itagaki already explained that the second DELETE would have removed the > 100 dead rows you consider to be missing. > > Any SQL statement that reads a block can do HOT pruning, if the block is > otherwise unlocked. Where does heap_page_prune() get called from in the DELETE path? -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise Postgres Company
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: