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