On Sun, 2006-06-25 at 05:29, Alvaro Herrera wrote: > Mark Woodward wrote: > > I originally suggested a methodology for preserving MVCC and everyone is > > confusing it as update "in place," this isnot what I intended. > > It doesn't make sense, but maybe vacuuming a page would. Naturally, it > would need to wholly scan all the indexes to clean'em up, so it's > probably not a good idea in general.
But a version of vacuum which does normal index scans when vacuuming just a small percent of a huge table would make sense wouldn't it ? So you don't need to make full scans of the vacuumed indexes but look up the entries based on the vacuumed key. There were discussions about this I think, and the objection was that it might be that an index scan might miss index entries, in particular when badly behaved user defined functions are involved. Cheers, Csaba. ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 6: explain analyze is your friend
