Re: Subject: bool / vacuum full bug followup part 2 - Mailing list pgsql-general

From Tom Lane
Subject Re: Subject: bool / vacuum full bug followup part 2
Date
Msg-id 15296.1020455274@sss.pgh.pa.us
Whole thread Raw
In response to bool / vacuum full bug followup part 2  (Scott Marlowe <scott.marlowe@ihs.com>)
Responses Re: Subject: bool / vacuum full bug followup part 2  (Scott Marlowe <scott.marlowe@ihs.com>)
Re: Subject: bool / vacuum full bug followup part 2  (Jeffrey Baker <jwbaker@acm.org>)
Re: Subject: bool / vacuum full bug followup part 2  (Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us>)
List pgsql-general
Scott Marlowe <scott.marlowe@ihs.com> writes:
> And reclaimed the space.  Is that the official way, short of dropping and
> recreating an index to reclaim its space?  Is there a plan to make vacuum
> reclaim unused space in indexes?

Yes, and yes, but don't hold your breath on the latter part --- that
TODO item has been around for awhile.  And it's gotten harder now that
we have lazy VACUUM; that means we need to be able to condense indexes
concurrently with other index operations.

AFAIK there's not a big problem with index growth if the range of index
keys remains reasonably static.  The problem comes in if you have a
range of values that keeps growing (eg, you are indexing a SERIAL or
timestamp column).  The right end of the btree keeps growing, but
there's no mechanism to collapse out no-longer-used space at the left
end.

            regards, tom lane

pgsql-general by date:

Previous
From: Uros Gruber
Date:
Subject: Re: problem with RULEs
Next
From: Paul M Foster
Date:
Subject: Re: Foxpro