Re: Synchronized scans

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Jeff Davis <pgsql(at)j-davis(dot)com>
Cc: Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, Patches <pgsql-patches(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Synchronized scans
Date: 2007-06-11 01:39:58
Message-ID: 20559.1181525998@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-patches

Jeff Davis <pgsql(at)j-davis(dot)com> 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 cleaning out index entries for the
known-dead heap tuple. The current VACUUM design amortizes that cost
across as many dead heap tuples as it can manage; doing it retail seems
inevitably to be a lot more expensive.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-patches by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Alvaro Herrera 2007-06-11 01:49:27 Re: Synchronized scans
Previous Message Gregory Stark 2007-06-10 20:14:44 Re: Synchronized scans