From: | "Jim C(dot) Nasby" <decibel(at)decibel(dot)org> |
---|---|
To: | Christopher Browne <cbbrowne(at)acm(dot)org> |
Cc: | pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Cheaper VACUUMing |
Date: | 2005-01-23 22:18:38 |
Message-ID: | 20050123221838.GC67721@decibel.org |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-performance |
For reference, here's the discussion about this that took place on
hackers: http://lnk.nu/archives.postgresql.org/142.php
On Sun, Jan 23, 2005 at 01:16:20AM -0500, Christopher Browne wrote:
> A long time ago, in a galaxy far, far away, gsstark(at)mit(dot)edu (Greg Stark) wrote:
> > Dawid Kuroczko <qnex42(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> >
> >> Quick thought -- would it be to possible to implement a 'partial VACUUM'
> >> per analogiam to partial indexes?
> >
> > No.
> >
> > But it gave me another idea. Perhaps equally infeasible, but I don't see why.
> >
> > What if there were a map of modified pages. So every time any tuple
> > was marked deleted it could be marked in the map as modified. VACUUM
> > would only have to look at these pages. And if it could mark as free
> > every tuple that was marked as deleted then it could unmark the
> > page.
> >
> > The only downside I see is that this could be a source of contention
> > on multi-processor machines running lots of concurrent
> > update/deletes.
>
> I was thinking the same thing after hearing fairly extensive
> "pooh-poohing" of the notion of vacuuming based on all the pages in
> the shared cache.
>
> This "hot list page table" would probably need to be a hash table. It
> rather parallels the FSM, including the way that it would need to be
> limited in size.
> --
> wm(X,Y):-write(X),write('@'),write(Y). wm('cbbrowne','gmail.com').
> http://cbbrowne.com/info/lsf.html
> Rules of the Evil Overlord #57. "Before employing any captured
> artifacts or machinery, I will carefully read the owner's manual."
> <http://www.eviloverlord.com/>
>
> ---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
> TIP 3: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate
> subscribe-nomail command to majordomo(at)postgresql(dot)org so that your
> message can get through to the mailing list cleanly
>
--
Jim C. Nasby, Database Consultant decibel(at)decibel(dot)org
Give your computer some brain candy! www.distributed.net Team #1828
Windows: "Where do you want to go today?"
Linux: "Where do you want to go tomorrow?"
FreeBSD: "Are you guys coming, or what?"
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Jim C. Nasby | 2005-01-23 22:21:34 | Re: PostgreSQL clustering VS MySQL clustering |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2005-01-23 20:40:03 | Re: PostgreSQL clustering VS MySQL clustering |