Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
> Bruce Momjian wrote:
> > Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
> >> Russell Smith wrote:
> >>> 2. Index cleanup is the most expensive part of vacuum. So doing a
> >>> partial vacuum actually means more I/O as you have to do index cleanup
> >>> more often.
> >> I don't think that's usually the case. Index(es) are typically only a
> >> fraction of the size of the table, and since 8.2 we do index vacuums in
> >> a single scan in physical order. In fact, in many applications the index
> >> is be mostly cached and the index scan doesn't generate any I/O at all.
> > Are _all_ the indexes cached? I would doubt that.
> Well, depends on your schema, of course. In many applications, yes.
> > Also, for typical
> > table, what percentage is the size of all indexes combined?
> Well, there's no such thing as a typical table. As an anecdote here's
> the ratios (total size of all indexes of a table)/(size of corresponding
> heap) for the bigger tables for a DBT-2 run I have at hand:
> Stock: 1190470/68550 = 6%
> Order_line: 950103/274372 = 29%
> Customer: 629011 /(5711+20567) = 8%
> In any case, for the statement "Index cleanup is the most expensive part
> of vacuum" to be true, you're indexes would have to take up 2x as much
> space as the heap, since the heap is scanned twice. I'm sure there's
> databases like that out there, but I don't think it's the common case.
I agree it index cleanup isn't > 50% of vacuum. I was trying to figure
out how small, and it seems about 15% of the total table, which means if
we have bitmap vacuum, we can conceivably reduce vacuum load by perhaps
80%, assuming 5% of the table is scanned.
Bruce Momjian [EMAIL PROTECTED]
+ If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. +
---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 6: explain analyze is your friend