Tom Lane wrote: > Jeff Davis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > I'm sure this has been brought up before, does someone have a pointer to > > a discussion about doing VACUUM-like work in a sequential scan? > > Yeah, it's been discussed before; try looking for "incremental vacuum" > and such phrases. > > The main stumbling block is cleaning out index entries for the > known-dead heap tuple. The current VACUUM design amortizes that cost > across as many dead heap tuples as it can manage; doing it retail seems > inevitably to be a lot more expensive.
Maybe what we could do is have a seqscan save known-dead tuple IDs in a file, and then in a different operation (initiated by autovacuum) we would remove those TIDs from indexes, before the regular heap scan. -- Alvaro Herrera http://www.CommandPrompt.com/ The PostgreSQL Company - Command Prompt, Inc. ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 5: don't forget to increase your free space map settings
