Re: GLOBAL vs LOCAL temp tables

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Kevin Brown <kevin(at)sysexperts(dot)com>
Cc: pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: GLOBAL vs LOCAL temp tables
Date: 2003-04-17 14:14:46
Message-ID: 10349.1050588886@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Kevin Brown <kevin(at)sysexperts(dot)com> writes:
> But as Tom pointed out, if you delete a bunch of data from a table
> then insert a fresh set of data, but don't end up inserting much data
> with roughly the same keys that were in the original batch of data,
> you'll get a lot of empty areas in your index that are unused. VACUUM
> marks them as being available for reuse, of course, but that doesn't
> help you unless you insert data containing values that are appropriate
> to the unused areas.

No, you misunderstood. That is the problem in existing releases --- but
in CVS tip, VACUUM can actually remove unused sections from the b-tree
and make that space available for re-use in other key ranges.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2003-04-17 14:35:31 Re: For the ametures. (related to "Are we losing momentum?")
Previous Message Tom Lane 2003-04-17 14:05:20 Re: [HACKERS] Are we losing momentum?