On Thu, Mar 02, 2006 at 01:01:21AM -0500, Tom Lane wrote: > > Essentially, we would be folding the "find > > dead tuples and compress page" logic, which is currently in vacuum, back > > to insert. IMHO this is unacceptable from a performance PoV. > > That's the other problem: it's not apparent why pushing work from vacuum > back into foreground processing is a good idea. Especially not why > retail vacuuming of individual tuples will be better than wholesale.
The problem is that even with vacuum_cost_delay, vacuum is still very slow and problematic in situations such as a large tables in a heavy transaction environment. Anything that could help reduce the need for 'traditional' vacuuming could well be a win. Even so, I think the most productive path to pursue at this time is a dead-space-map/known-clean-map. Either one is almost guaranteed to provide benefits. Once we know what good they do we can move forward from there with further improvements. -- Jim C. Nasby, Sr. Engineering Consultant [EMAIL PROTECTED] Pervasive Software http://pervasive.com work: 512-231-6117 vcard: http://jim.nasby.net/pervasive.vcf cell: 512-569-9461 ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 1: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate subscribe-nomail command to [EMAIL PROTECTED] so that your message can get through to the mailing list cleanly
