Received: from localhost (maia-4.hub.org [200.46.204.183]) by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id BE9759FB1CC for ; Fri, 24 Aug 2007 13:56:26 -0300 (ADT) Received: from postgresql.org ([200.46.204.71]) by localhost (mx1.hub.org [200.46.204.183]) (amavisd-maia, port 10024) with ESMTP id 36852-01-10 for ; Fri, 24 Aug 2007 13:56:23 -0300 (ADT) X-Greylist: domain auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.5 Received: from hu-out-0506.google.com (hu-out-0506.google.com [72.14.214.229]) by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7DB169FB210 for ; Fri, 24 Aug 2007 13:56:22 -0300 (ADT) Received: by hu-out-0506.google.com with SMTP id 22so526620hug for ; Fri, 24 Aug 2007 09:56:21 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=beta; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:message-id:date:from:to:subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:references; b=oM5AejJzyfFMLrwdhwufUO8fj7fikF34Q6RXUmvxZQyf88FgEzxz8LwexOrSQJhoCr8NqkF92oVY0UHvZfMfWko5JeByhR2XUVWRnUy9vQnF4ET1WjVzQLTWhre2bSm1mDkPJMSeJP/rjG6UXs3ayPWBD+MymYBKDHCqgKQxq7o= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=beta; h=received:message-id:date:from:to:subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:references; b=DpiYjKI8S0o4Lc96i2/IVEXm40zSg0rtUXWO+IJflh7jUq1Vi7fYfZJrqMOlB2yfODXRVVXDHSBSJLBxKEyw19iLdRCBPvQ6O5QrV/50mjk483AODmDcsoApZ10GCMtwtfH6jgl59LsFkyeaQX55Zf2LdlsYXRsKZw4C7gqTo30= Received: by 10.78.204.1 with SMTP id b1mr2093500hug.1187974580766; Fri, 24 Aug 2007 09:56:20 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.78.135.11 with HTTP; Fri, 24 Aug 2007 09:56:20 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <357fa7590708240956k18e3ba7dv735cdaa99a667312@mail.gmail.com> Date: Fri, 24 Aug 2007 12:56:20 -0400 From: "Steven Flatt" To: "Tom Lane" Subject: Re: When/if to Reindex Cc: "Mark Kirkwood" , "Gregory Stark" , "Bill Moran" , "Vivek Khera" , "Pgsql performance" In-Reply-To: <1759.1187972125@sss.pgh.pa.us> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_Part_71892_15426400.1187974580708" References: <357fa7590707181008k65ab2f20l55bebb3c14f52770@mail.gmail.com> <11801.1186624308@sss.pgh.pa.us> <357fa7590708090651p71b9bc47n66739f8dbbb4ff57@mail.gmail.com> <357fa7590708220955h441cd75ap4c0f0342a1c30a14@mail.gmail.com> <873aybw2le.fsf@oxford.xeocode.com> <357fa7590708231525h2f48ce4dw3e48ecca5ccddf72@mail.gmail.com> <17370.1187927942@sss.pgh.pa.us> <46CE6883.10104@paradise.net.nz> <357fa7590708240722m204d678eid02b7ce3470eba1a@mail.gmail.com> <1759.1187972125@sss.pgh.pa.us> X-Virus-Scanned: Maia Mailguard 1.0.1 X-Archive-Number: 200708/289 X-Sequence-Number: 26419 ------=_Part_71892_15426400.1187974580708 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline On 8/24/07, Tom Lane wrote: > > "Steven Flatt" writes: > > Why do we even need to consider calling RelationGetNumberOfBlocks or > looking > > at the pg_class.relpages entry? My understanding of the expected > behaviour > > is that while a reindex is happening, all queries run against the parent > > table are planned as though the index isn't there (i.e. it's unusable). > > Where in the world did you get that idea? Maybe that's what I was *hoping* the behaviour would be. :)