[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Csaba Nagy) writes:
>> > [...]
>> > There has to be a more linear way of handling this scenario.
>> So vacuum the table often.
> Good advice, except if the table is huge :-)
... Then the table shouldn't be designed to be huge. That represents
a design error.
> Here we have for example some tables which are frequently updated but
> contain >100 million rows. Vacuuming that takes hours. And the dead row
> candidates are the ones which are updated again and again and looked up
This demonstrates that "archival" material and "active" data should be
They have different access patterns; kludging them into the same table
turns out badly.
> A good solution would be a new type of vacuum which does not need to
> do a full table scan but can clean the pending dead rows without
> that... I guess then I could vacuum really frequently those tables.
That's yet another feature that's on the ToDo list; the "Vacuum Space
The notion is to have lists of recently modified pages, and to
restrict VACUUM to those pages. (Probably a special version of
output = reverse("moc.enworbbc" "@" "enworbbc")
"As I've gained more experience with Perl it strikes me that it
resembles Lisp in many ways, albeit Lisp as channeled by an awk script
on acid." -- Tim Moore (on comp.lang.lisp)
---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 9: In versions below 8.0, the planner will ignore your desire to
choose an index scan if your joining column's datatypes do not