> Honestly, this seems like an inordinate amount of
> babysitting for a production application.  I'm not
> sure if the client will be willing to accept it.

Well, then, tell them not to delete 75% of the rows in a table at once.  I 
imagine that operation brought processing to a halt, too.

If the client isn't willing to accept the consequences of their own bad data 
management, I'm not really sure what you expect us to do about it.

> Admittedly my knowledge of the inner workings of an
> RDBMS is limited, but could somebody explain to me why
> this would be so?  If you delete a bunch of rows why
> doesn't the index get updated at the same time?  

It does get updated.  What doesn't happen is the space getting reclaimed.  In 
a *normal* data situation, the dead nodes are recycled for new rows.   But 
doing a massive delete operation upsets that, and generally needs to be 
followed by a REINDEX.

> Is 
> this a common issue among all RDBMSs or is it
> something that is PostgreSQL specific?  

Speaking from experience, this sort of thing affects MSSQL as well, although 
the maintenance routines are different.

Josh Berkus
Aglio Database Solutions
San Francisco

---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 3: 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

Reply via email to