From: | Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com>, Csaba Nagy <nagy(at)ecircle-ag(dot)com>, "Matthew T(dot) O'Connor" <matthew(at)zeut(dot)net>, Christopher Browne <cbbrowne(at)acm(dot)org>, postgres hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Automatic free space map filling |
Date: | 2006-05-02 10:34:34 |
Message-ID: | 1146566074.9599.350.camel@localhost.localdomain |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Fri, 2006-04-28 at 15:58 -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> Tom Lane wrote:
> > Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com> writes:
> > > So for you it would certainly help a lot to be able to vacuum the first
> > > X pages of the big table, stop, release locks, create new transaction,
> > > continue with the next X pages, lather, rinse, repeat.
> >
> > > This is perfectly doable, it only needs enough motivation from a
> > > knowledgeable person.
> >
> > Bruce and I were discussing this the other day; it'd be pretty easy to
> > make plain VACUUM start a fresh transaction immediately after it
> > finishes a scan heap/clean indexes/clean heap cycle. The infrastructure
> > for this (in particular, session-level locks that won't be lost by
> > closing the xact) is all there. You'd have to figure out how often to
> > start a new xact ... every cycle is probably too often, at least for
> > smaller maintenance_work_mem settings ... but it'd not be hard or
> > involve any strange changes in system semantics.
>
> Should this be a TODO? One item of discussion was taht people should
> just increase their workmem so the job can be done faster in larger
> batches.
Yes, I think it should be a todo item.
Csaba's point was that it was the duration a VACUUM transaction was held
open that caused problems. Increasing maintenance_work_mem won't help
with that problem.
This would then allow a VACUUM to progress with a high vacuum_cost_delay
without any ill effects elsewhere in the system.
--
Simon Riggs
EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Jonah H. Harris | 2006-05-02 10:36:09 | Re: Google SoC--Idea Request |
Previous Message | Simon Riggs | 2006-05-02 10:10:34 | Re: Constraint Exclusion + Joins? |