From: | Laurenz Albe <laurenz(dot)albe(at)cybertec(dot)at> |
---|---|
To: | Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)bowt(dot)ie> |
Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, "Daniel Westermann (DWE)" <daniel(dot)westermann(at)dbi-services(dot)com>, "pgsql-generallists(dot)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-general(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Behavior change in PostgreSQL 14Beta3 or bug? |
Date: | 2021-09-07 07:14:52 |
Message-ID: | 04ecf271b82a367a6da59e9abcbf89021c2fd3d3.camel@cybertec.at |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-general |
On Mon, 2021-09-06 at 12:11 -0700, Peter Geoghegan wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 6, 2021 at 9:21 AM Laurenz Albe <laurenz(dot)albe(at)cybertec(dot)at> wrote:
> > #define BYPASS_THRESHOLD_PAGES 0.02 /* i.e. 2% of rel_pages */
> >
> > So up to an additional 2% of all pages can have the all-visible bit
> > unset with "index_cleanup = auto".
> >
> > That is probably not worth worrying, right?
>
> I don't think it's worth worrying about.
>
> The bypass-index-vacuuming feature may have had a bit of a messaging
> problem. It was something we usually talked about as being about
> skipping index vacuuming, because that's what it actually does.
> However, the feature isn't really about doing less work during VACUUM.
> It's actually about doing *more* work during VACUUM -- more useful
> work. Especially setting visibility map bits. But also freezing. Now
> you can very aggressively tune VACUUM to do these things more often,
> with no fear of that being way too expensive because of index
> vacuuming that has only marginal value.
That makes sense; thanks for the detailed explanation.
Yours,
Laurenz Albe
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Laurenz Albe | 2021-09-07 07:21:24 | Re: Choosing an index on partitioned tables. |
Previous Message | Tim Uckun | 2021-09-07 04:26:52 | Re: Choosing an index on partitioned tables. |