On Mon, Dec 12, 2005 at 06:26:37PM -0500, Tom Lane wrote: > Wes <wespvp@xxxxxxxxxxxx> writes: > > The problem was determined to be due to the fact that indexes are vacuumed > > in index order, not in disk storage order. I don't see anything about this > > in the "What's new" for 8.1. Has anything been done to resolve this? > > No. Avoiding that would require a new approach to > vacuum-vs-ordinary-indexscan interlocking, so it won't happen until > someone has a Bright Idea (tm). Plus there is a TODO to only vacuum pages that are known to have dead tuples, which should hopefully mean no more index-scans during vacuum as well. Hopefully this makes it into 8.2... -- Jim C. Nasby, Sr. Engineering Consultant jnasby@xxxxxxxxxxxxx Pervasive Software http://pervasive.com work: 512-231-6117 vcard: http://jim.nasby.net/pervasive.vcf cell: 512-569-9461
