On Sat, 2007-06-09 at 09:58 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
Jeff Davis [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
* For a large table, do lazy_scan_heap, scan_heap, and a sequential
scan usually progress at approximately the same rate?
scan_heap would probably be faster than a regular seqscan, since it
isn't
Tom Lane wrote:
Jeff Davis [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
* Just adding in the syncscan to scan_heap and lazy_scan_heap seems
very easy at first thought. Are there any complications that I'm
missing?
I believe there are assumptions buried in both full and lazy vacuum that
blocks are scanned in
Heikki Linnakangas [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I don't think sync-scanning vacuum is worth pursuing, though, because of the
other issues: index scans, vacuum cost accounting, and the fact that the 2nd
pass would be harder to synchronize. There's a lot of other interesting ideas
for vacuum that
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
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
