On 2014-10-19 12:50:30 -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > Andres Freund <and...@2ndquadrant.com> writes: > > There's rub here though. We unconditionally do: > > /* Do post-vacuum cleanup and statistics update for each index */ > > for (i = 0; i < nindexes; i++) > > lazy_cleanup_index(Irel[i], indstats[i], vacrelstats); > > > and that's not particularly cheap. Maybe we should make that conditional > > when there's been no lazy_vacuum_index/heap calls at all? > > Absolutely not. If the cleanup step is skippable, it would be the > province of the index AM to make that decision.
Fair point. At the moment we're doing a full of nbtree indexes everytime we do a vacuum. Even when the heap vacuum only scanned a couple hundred pages of a huge table. That makes partial vacuum noticeably less useful. So I do think we need to do something to improve upon the situation. Greetings, Andres Freund -- Andres Freund http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
