On Tue, 27 Jul 1999, Tom Lane wrote:
> Date: Tue, 27 Jul 1999 10:57:36 -0400
> From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
> To: Oleg Bartunov <oleg@sai.msu.su>
> Cc: pgsql-hackers@postgreSQL.org
> Subject: Re: [HACKERS] UPDATE performance degradation (6.5.1)
>
> Oleg Bartunov <oleg@sai.msu.su> writes:
> > and after vacuum analyze:
> > -rw------- 1 postgres users 8192 Jul 27 18:54 hits
> > -rw------- 1 postgres users 1703936 Jul 27 18:54 hits_pkey
> > Why hits_pkey is so big ? I have only 7 rows in the table.
>
> Looks like vacuum reclaims the extra space in the table itself,
> but does not do so with indexes. Ugh.
And do we consider this as a bug ? How do correcting of vacuum
could change poor performance ?
I just rebuild my table without using indices and performace increased
a lot. But this is undesirable because it will slowdown my application.
I'll try dbm files for logging instead of postgres. What's the shame :-)
regards, Oleg
>
> I've thought for some time that vacuum ought to drop and rebuild
> indexes instead of trying to update them. This might be another
> reason for doing that...
>
> regards, tom lane
>
_____________________________________________________________
Oleg Bartunov, sci.researcher, hostmaster of AstroNet,
Sternberg Astronomical Institute, Moscow University (Russia)
Internet: oleg@sai.msu.su, http://www.sai.msu.su/~megera/
phone: +007(095)939-16-83, +007(095)939-23-83
