@@ -1016,7 +1370,7 @@ Comments: In-reply-to Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us>
...
@@ -1016,7 +1370,7 @@ Comments: In-reply-to Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us>
Date: Fri, 21 Jan 2000 23:50:13 -0500
Date: Fri, 21 Jan 2000 23:50:13 -0500
Message-ID: <19678.948516613@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Message-ID: <19678.948516613@sss.pgh.pa.us>
From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Content-Length: 1302
Status: ORr
Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us> writes:
Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us> writes:
> Conclusions:
> Conclusions:
...
@@ -1046,12 +1400,36 @@ into...
...
@@ -1046,12 +1400,36 @@ into...
regards, tom lane
regards, tom lane
From owner-pgsql-hackers@hub.org Sat Jan 22 02:31:03 2000
From owner-pgsql-hackers@hub.org Sat Jan 22 02:31:03 2000
Received: from renoir.op.net (root@renoir.op.net [207.29.195.4])
by candle.pha.pa.us (8.9.0/8.9.0) with ESMTP id DAA06743
for <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us>; Sat, 22 Jan 2000 03:31:02 -0500 (EST)
Received: from hub.org (hub.org [216.126.84.1]) by renoir.op.net (o1/$Revision: 1.2 $) with ESMTP id DAA07529 for <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us>; Sat, 22 Jan 2000 03:25:13 -0500 (EST)
Received: from localhost (majordom@localhost)
by hub.org (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id DAA31900;
Sat, 22 Jan 2000 03:19:53 -0500 (EST)
(envelope-from owner-pgsql-hackers)
Received: by hub.org (bulk_mailer v1.5); Sat, 22 Jan 2000 03:17:56 -0500
Received: (from majordom@localhost)
by hub.org (8.9.3/8.9.3) id DAA31715
for pgsql-hackers-outgoing; Sat, 22 Jan 2000 03:16:58 -0500 (EST)
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0)
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0)
...
@@ -1059,11 +1437,48 @@ X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300
...
@@ -1059,11 +1437,48 @@ X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300
In-Reply-To: <16498.948481591@sss.pgh.pa.us>
In-Reply-To: <16498.948481591@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Importance: Normal
Importance: Normal
Sender: owner-pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org
Sender: owner-pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org
Content-Length: 49
Status: OR
[ Charset iso-2022-jp unsupported, skipping... ]
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org
> [mailto:owner-pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org]On Behalf Of Tom Lane
>
> Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us> writes:
> > Conclusions:
> > o indexes never get smaller
>
> Which we knew...
>
> > o drop/recreate index is slower than vacuum of indexes
>
> Quite a few people have reported finding the opposite in practice.
> You should probably try vacuuming after deleting or updating some
> fraction of the rows, rather than just the all or none cases.
>
Vacuum after delelting all rows isn't a worst case.
There's no moving in that case and vacuum doesn't need to call
index_insert() corresponding to the moving of heap tuples.
Vacuum after deleting half of rows may be one of the worst case.
In this case,index_delete() is called as many times as 'delete all'
case and expensive index_insert() is called for moved_in tuples.
Regards.
Hiroshi Inoue
Inoue@tpf.co.jp
************
From tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us Sat Jan 22 10:31:02 2000
From tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us Sat Jan 22 10:31:02 2000
Received: from renoir.op.net (root@renoir.op.net [207.29.195.4])
by candle.pha.pa.us (8.9.0/8.9.0) with ESMTP id LAA20882
for <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us>; Sat, 22 Jan 2000 11:31:00 -0500 (EST)
Received: from sss2.sss.pgh.pa.us (sss.pgh.pa.us [209.114.166.2]) by renoir.op.net (o1/$Revision: 1.2 $) with ESMTP id LAA26612 for <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us>; Sat, 22 Jan 2000 11:12:44 -0500 (EST)
Received: from sss2.sss.pgh.pa.us (tgl@localhost [127.0.0.1])
by sss2.sss.pgh.pa.us (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id LAA20569;
