Wow I was busy for a controle of days and now I’m again fully committed to this initiative. These ideas are extremely useful to my. I’ll first start by reading the old in-place implementation, but meanwhile I have the following questions: 1- I’m thinking of adding only one simple step to be auto-vacuum. This means that there will neither be excessive locking nor resource utilization. I guess my question is: does that simple step make the current lazy auto-vacuum much worse? 2- Can you point me to a resource explaining why this might lead to index bloating?
Em qui., 18 de jul. de 2024 às 15:21, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> escreveu: > Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> writes: > > On Thu, Jul 18, 2024 at 7:08 AM David Rowley <dgrowle...@gmail.com> > wrote: > >> I think the primary issue with the old way was index bloat wasn't > >> fixed. The release notes for 9.0 do claim the CLUSTER method "is > >> substantially faster in most cases", however, I imagine there are > >> plenty of cases where it wouldn't be. e.g, it's hard to imagine > >> rewriting the entire 1TB table and indexes is cheaper than moving 1 > >> row out of place row. > > > The other thing I remember besides index bloat is that it was > > crushingly slow. > > Yeah. The old way was great if there really were just a few tuples > needing to be moved ... but by the time you decide you need VACUUM > FULL rather than plain VACUUM, that's unlikely to be the case. > > regards, tom lane >
