Kevin Brown <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Well, REINDEX is apparently a very expensive operation right now. But > how expensive would it be to go through the entire index and perform > the index page merge operation being discussed here, and nothing else? > If it's fast enough, might it be worthwhile to implement just this > alone as a separate maintenance command (e.g., VACUUM INDEX) that > acquires the appropriate lock (AccessExclusive, I'd expect) on the > index to prevent exactly the issues you're concerned about? > If it's fast enough even on large tables, it would be a nice > alternative to REINDEX, I'd think.
This would work, but it's hard to tell if it'd be worthwhile short of actually doing an implementation and field-testing it ... regards, tom lane ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 6: explain analyze is your friend