| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Wes <wespvp(at)syntegra(dot)com> |
| Cc: | pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Excessive vacuum times |
| Date: | 2005-12-12 23:26:37 |
| Message-ID: | 2719.1134429997@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-general |
Wes <wespvp(at)syntegra(dot)com> writes:
> The problem was determined to be due to the fact that indexes are vacuumed
> in index order, not in disk storage order. I don't see anything about this
> in the "What's new" for 8.1. Has anything been done to resolve this?
No. Avoiding that would require a new approach to
vacuum-vs-ordinary-indexscan interlocking, so it won't happen until
someone has a Bright Idea (tm).
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | vishal saberwal | 2005-12-12 23:34:21 | File access problem access(), stat() |
| Previous Message | Joshua D. Drake | 2005-12-12 23:10:31 | Re: What's new in 8.1.1 |