On Sat, 2006-02-11 at 16:36 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> Simon Riggs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > I believe this is safe.
>
> I won't insult your intelligence by pointing out how I know that you
> didn't even test the patch against hash or gist.
I don't recall either way, though from what you say
Here's the patch as-applied. Note one major difference from your
original: the logic about whether an indexscan can be skipped is now
entirely local to the index AMs, rather than allowing VACUUM to make
assumptions that may not be warranted for particular AMs. For the
same reason, the AM is still
Simon Riggs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I believe this is safe.
I won't insult your intelligence by pointing out how I know that you
didn't even test the patch against hash or gist.
The major problem with the patch is that it's incapable of producing
correct tuple-count stats for partial indexe
On Sat, 2006-02-11 at 12:04 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> Bruce Momjian writes:
> > Patch applied. Thanks.
>
> Please revert. You cannot skip scanning indexes simply because there
> was no heap activity. btree for instance does post-cleanup on the
> next vacuum.
The patch skips only the first scan
Simon Riggs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> We discussed an optimization of VACUUM here
> http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2005-09/msg00046.php
> that would allow VACUUM to complete faster by avoiding scanning the
> indexes when no rows were removed from the heap by the VACUUM.
After loo
Bruce Momjian writes:
> Patch applied. Thanks.
Please revert. You cannot skip scanning indexes simply because there
was no heap activity. btree for instance does post-cleanup on the
next vacuum.
regards, tom lane
---(end of broadcast)--
Patch applied. Thanks.
---
Simon Riggs wrote:
> On Wed, 2005-12-07 at 17:40 +, Simon Riggs wrote:
> > On Wed, 2005-12-07 at 09:55 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> > > Simon Riggs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > > > We discusse
On Wed, 2005-12-07 at 17:40 +, Simon Riggs wrote:
> On Wed, 2005-12-07 at 09:55 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> > Simon Riggs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > > We discussed an optimization of VACUUM here
> > > http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2005-09/msg00046.php
> > > that would allow VAC
On Wed, 2005-12-07 at 09:55 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> Simon Riggs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > We discussed an optimization of VACUUM here
> > http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2005-09/msg00046.php
> > that would allow VACUUM to complete faster by avoiding scanning the
> > indexes when
On Wed, 2005-12-07 at 09:55 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> Simon Riggs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > We discussed an optimization of VACUUM here
> > http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2005-09/msg00046.php
> > that would allow VACUUM to complete faster by avoiding scanning the
> > indexes when
Simon Riggs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> We discussed an optimization of VACUUM here
> http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2005-09/msg00046.php
> that would allow VACUUM to complete faster by avoiding scanning the
> indexes when no rows were removed from the heap by the VACUUM.
Unfortuna
We discussed an optimization of VACUUM here
http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2005-09/msg00046.php
that would allow VACUUM to complete faster by avoiding scanning the
indexes when no rows were removed from the heap by the VACUUM.
Patch applies cleanly on cvstip; make check passes.
Test
12 matches
Mail list logo
