From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
To: Vince Vielhaber <vev@michvhf.com>
Cc: pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: sequence indexes
Date: Fri, 25 Jan 2002 15:56:05 -0500
Message-ID: <5377.1011992165@sss.pgh.pa.us> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <Pine.BSF.4.40.0201251543310.47994-100000@paprika.michvhf.com>
References: <Pine.BSF.4.40.0201251543310.47994-100000@paprika.michvhf.com>
Vince Vielhaber <vev@michvhf.com> writes:
> A bit much diskspace for that, isn't it? The data turns over alot.
Yeah, this is one of the scenarios where we desperately need index
compaction. The index pages holding the lower serial numbers are
no doubt empty or nearly so, but there's no mechanism for reclaiming
that space short of rebuilding the index. (BTW you might consider
REINDEX instead of a manual drop/recreate.)
I've looked at the problem a little bit --- there's literature more
recent than Lehmann-Yao that talks about how to do btree compaction
without losing concurrency. But it didn't get done for 7.2.
regards, tom lane
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Reply to all the recipients using the --to and --cc options:
reply via email
To: pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org
Cc: tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us, vev@michvhf.com
Subject: Re: sequence indexes
In-Reply-To: <5377.1011992165@sss.pgh.pa.us>
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
This inbox is served by DDX for PostgreSQL; see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox