Re: GLOBAL vs LOCAL temp tables - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Tom Lane
Subject Re: GLOBAL vs LOCAL temp tables
Date
Msg-id 10349.1050588886@sss.pgh.pa.us
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: GLOBAL vs LOCAL temp tables  (Kevin Brown <kevin@sysexperts.com>)
Responses Re: GLOBAL vs LOCAL temp tables  (Kevin Brown <kevin@sysexperts.com>)
List pgsql-hackers
Kevin Brown <kevin@sysexperts.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



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: pg_clog woes with 7.3.2 - Episode 2
Next
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: For the ametures. (related to "Are we losing momentum?")