| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Wes <wespvp(at)syntegra(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Postgresql-General <pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Vacuum time degrading |
| Date: | 2005-04-05 16:59:44 |
| Message-ID: | 14630.1112720384@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-general pgsql-hackers |
Wes <wespvp(at)syntegra(dot)com> writes:
> Ok, now I follow. Taking the biggest indexes:
> The weekend before:
> INFO: index "message_recipients_i_recip_date" now contains 393961361 row
> versions in 2435100 pages
> INFO: index "message_recipients_i_message" now contains 393934394 row
> versions in 1499853 pages
> After reindex:
> INFO: index "message_recipients_i_recip_date" now contains 401798357 row
> versions in 1765613 pages
> INFO: index "message_recipients_i_message" now contains 401787237 row
> versions in 1322974 pages
OK, that's certainly not a factor-of-four difference in size, so I'm
now convinced you're right: bringing the index into physical order is
having a big impact on the runtime.
From a development standpoint, that suggests a couple of TODO items:
* Look harder at whether VACUUM can scan the index in physical instead
of logical order.
* See whether ordinary btree maintenance (ie page splits) can do
anything to maintain/improve the physical ordering of the index.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Michael Fuhr | 2005-04-05 17:03:00 | Re: contrib/dbsize |
| Previous Message | Wes | 2005-04-05 16:47:01 | Re: Vacuum time degrading |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Joshua D. Drake | 2005-04-05 18:47:50 | REINDEX ALL |
| Previous Message | Wes | 2005-04-05 16:47:01 | Re: Vacuum time degrading |