Re: Behavior change in PostgreSQL 14Beta3 or bug?

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

In response to

Browse pgsql-general by date

  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.