Heikki Linnakangas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Tom Lane wrote:
>> VACUUM?
>>
> There's a few options that I've thought of this far:
> 1. Whenever a tuple is found dead on page X, vacuum of the index will
> have to go to that page again to see if there's any matching tuples left.
Anything that involves having VACUUM re-evaluate index expressions is a
nonstarter ... or have you already forgotten the optimizations we put
into 8.2 that assume, eg, no sub-transactions within a VACUUM?
> 2. Have a reference counter on index tuple that's increased on insert
> and decreased by vacuum.
The "increase on insert" part I understand, the "decrease by vacuum"
part seems to have the same problem as #1. How do you tell which index
entries should be changed?
> 3. Do nothing. Let index scans mark the index tuple as dead when it's
> convenient. There's no correctness problem with just leaving dead index
> tuples there, because you have to check the index quals on each heap
> tuple anyway when you scan.
And we're back to routine REINDEX I guess :-(. This doesn't seem like a
satisfactory answer.
regards, tom lane
---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 1: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate
subscribe-nomail command to [EMAIL PROTECTED] so that your
message can get through to the mailing list cleanly
