Re: GIN fast-insert vs autovacuum scheduling - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Jeff Davis
Subject Re: GIN fast-insert vs autovacuum scheduling
Date
Msg-id 1237849185.2523.15.camel@dell.linuxdev.us.dell.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: GIN fast-insert vs autovacuum scheduling  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
Responses Re: GIN fast-insert vs autovacuum scheduling  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
List pgsql-hackers
On Mon, 2009-03-23 at 15:23 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> There is no need for any such infrastructure if we just drive it off a
>  post-ANALYZE callback.

That sounds reasonable, although it does seem a little strange for
analyze to actually perform cleanup.

Now that we have FSM, the cost of VACUUMing insert-only tables is a lot
less. Does that possibly justify running VACUUM on insert-only tables?
On tables without GIN indexes, that wouldn't be a complete waste,
because it could set hint bits, which needs to be done sometime anyway.

Regards,Jeff Davis



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Josh Berkus
Date:
Subject: Re: hstore improvements?
Next
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: contrib function naming, and upgrade issues