On 10/18/2016 11:28 AM, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> Vacuuming presents an additional challenge: in order to remove index
> items from an indirect index, it's critical to scan the PK index first
> and collect the PK values that are being removed. Then scan the
> indirect index and remove any items that match the PK items removed.
> This is a bit problematic because of the additional memory needed to
> store the array of PK values. I haven't implemented this yet.
As a whole I think the idea is interesting but the above scares me. Are
we trading initial performance gains for performance degradation through
maintenance? Since autovacuum is an indeterminate launch we could have a
situation where even a medium level updated laden table becomes a source
of contentions for IO and memory resources. I don't know that we would
see issues on modern bare metal but considering our implementation space
is places like RDS and GCE now, this is a serious consideration.
Sincerely,
JD
--
Command Prompt, Inc. http://the.postgres.company/ +1-503-667-4564
PostgreSQL Centered full stack support, consulting and development.
Everyone appreciates your honesty, until you are honest with them.
