From: | Robert Treat <xzilla(at)users(dot)sourceforge(dot)net> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)dcc(dot)uchile(dot)cl>, Shridhar Daithankar <shridhar_daithankar(at)persistent(dot)co(dot)in>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Doubt w.r.t vacuum |
Date: | 2003-07-28 19:29:27 |
Message-ID: | 1059420567.22259.814.camel@camel |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Mon, 2003-07-28 at 11:04, Tom Lane wrote:
> Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)dcc(dot)uchile(dot)cl> writes:
> > Vacuum full locks the entire table and moves tuples between pages. It
> > leaves all pages full of tuples (except, obviously, the last one), so it
> > doesn't need to record them in the FSM.
>
> This is overoptimistic :-(. VACUUM FULL cannot necessarily compact the
> table completely, and so it will record free space in FSM (if there is
> any worth recording). An example situation is that page 1000 may
> contain a very large tuple, which will not fit on any earlier page.
> Once VACUUM FULL discovers this fact, it will not bother shuffling
> tuples on earlier pages, since it's not going to be able to truncate the
> table to less than 1000 pages. There may nonetheless be enough space
> available in earlier pages to store thousands of smaller-sized tuples.
>
Isn't it possible that the reshuffling of tuples before page 1000 could
open up enough space to move the overly large tuple?
Robert Treat
--
Build A Brighter Lamp :: Linux Apache {middleware} PostgreSQL
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2003-07-28 19:32:56 | Re: [HACKERS] allowed user/db variables |
Previous Message | Stuart | 2003-07-28 18:36:27 | Re: Is Patch Ok for deferred trigger disk queue? |