RE: [HACKERS] Re: vacuum timings
От | Hiroshi Inoue |
---|---|
Тема | RE: [HACKERS] Re: vacuum timings |
Дата | |
Msg-id | NDBBIJLOILGIKBGDINDFIEEACCAA.Inoue@tpf.co.jp обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: vacuum timings (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>) |
Ответы |
Re: [HACKERS] Re: vacuum timings
Re: [HACKERS] Re: vacuum timings |
Список | pgsql-hackers |
> -----Original Message----- > From: owner-pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org > [mailto:owner-pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org]On Behalf Of Tom Lane > > Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us> writes: > > Conclusions: > > o indexes never get smaller > > Which we knew... > > > o drop/recreate index is slower than vacuum of indexes > > Quite a few people have reported finding the opposite in practice. > You should probably try vacuuming after deleting or updating some > fraction of the rows, rather than just the all or none cases. > Vacuum after delelting all rows isn't a worst case. There's no moving in that case and vacuum doesn't need to call index_insert() corresponding to the moving of heap tuples. Vacuum after deleting half of rows may be one of the worst case. In this case,index_delete() is called as many times as 'delete all' case and expensive index_insert() is called for moved_in tuples. Regards. Hiroshi Inoue Inoue@tpf.co.jp
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: