Re: Some thoughts about i/o priorities and throttling vacuum
Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
To: Shridhar Daithankar <shridhar_daithankar@persistent.co.in>
Cc: Andrew Sullivan <andrew@libertyrms.info>, pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org
Date: 2003-10-17T14:36:38Z
Lists: pgsql-hackers
Shridhar Daithankar <shridhar_daithankar@persistent.co.in> writes: > Would it be possible to have a vacuum variant that would just shuffle thr. > shared buffers and not touch disk at all? What would be the use of that? You couldn't predict *anything* about the coverage. Maybe you find all the free space in a particular table, but most likely you don't. In any case an I/O-free vacuum is impossible since once you have decided to recycle a particular tuple, you don't have any option about removing the corresponding index entries first. So unless both the table and all its indexes are in RAM, you will be incurring I/O. regards, tom lane