Re: [DOCS] The number of bytes is stored in index_size of pgstatindex() ?
От | Peter Geoghegan |
---|---|
Тема | Re: [DOCS] The number of bytes is stored in index_size of pgstatindex() ? |
Дата | |
Msg-id | CAM3SWZQofb+vrCn2Xb9HVDfesWVEE7S3Q_xmriaAMfjbCJYPtQ@mail.gmail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: [DOCS] The number of bytes is stored in index_size of pgstatindex() ? (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>) |
Ответы |
Re: [DOCS] The number of bytes is stored in index_size of
pgstatindex() ?
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
On Thu, Feb 18, 2016 at 4:53 PM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > Only a physical-order scan, ie vacuum, would visit a dead page > (ignoring transient corner cases like a page getting deleted while an > indexscan is in flight to it). So I think treating it as part of the > fragmentation measure is completely wrong: the point of that measure, > AFAICS, is to model how close an index-order traversal is to linear. > Half-dead pages are also normally very transient --- the only way they > persist is if there's a crash partway through a page deletion. So I think > it's appropriate to assume that future indexscans won't visit those, > either. Okay. >> there are usage patterns where half-dead pages might accumulate. > > Other than a usage pattern of "randomly SIGKILL backends every few > seconds", I don't see how that would happen. I meant where pages could accumulate without being recycled. -- Peter Geoghegan
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: