Re: Block B-Tree concept - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Jim C. Nasby
Subject Re: Block B-Tree concept
Date
Msg-id 20060927055253.GC19827@nasby.net
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Block B-Tree concept  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
Responses Re: Block B-Tree concept  (Heikki Linnakangas <heikki@enterprisedb.com>)
List pgsql-hackers
On Tue, Sep 26, 2006 at 08:51:10AM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> > 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.

Couldn't vacuum just eliminate tuples marked dead? Heck, don't we do
that anyway right now?

Granted, you'd want to periodically ensure that you scan the entire
index, but that shouldn't be horribly hard to set up.
-- 
Jim Nasby                                            jim@nasby.net
EnterpriseDB      http://enterprisedb.com      512.569.9461 (cell)


pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: "Jim C. Nasby"
Date:
Subject: Re: Block B-Tree concept
Next
From: Stefan Kaltenbrunner
Date:
Subject: Re: -HEAD planner issue wrt hash_joins on dbt3 ?