From: | Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | "Jim C(dot) Nasby" <jnasby(at)pervasive(dot)com> |
Cc: | Hannu Krosing <hannu(at)skype(dot)net>, Greg Stark <gsstark(at)mit(dot)edu>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com>, Gregory Maxwell <gmaxwell(at)gmail(dot)com>, Christopher Kings-Lynne <chriskl(at)familyhealth(dot)com(dot)au>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Improving free space usage (was: Reducing relation locking overhead) |
Date: | 2006-03-03 03:12:59 |
Message-ID: | 200603030312.k233CxT04287@candle.pha.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Added to TODO:
* Allow FSM to return free space toward the beginning of the heap file, in
hopes that empty pages at the end can be truncated by VACUUM
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jim C. Nasby wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 09, 2005 at 12:00:14AM +0200, Hannu Krosing wrote:
> > > Along those lines, I've wondered if it makes sense to add more
> > > flexibility in how free space is reclaimed in a table. One obvious
> > > possibility is to have a strategy where new tuples will always look to
> > > the FSM for space (instead of going into the current page if possible),
> > > and the FSM will always hand out the earliest page in the table it has.
> > > This mode would have the effect of moving tuples towards the front of
> > > the table, allowing for space reclamation. A variation might be that
> > > this mode will not effect tuples that are generated as part of an UPDATE
> > > and are in the first x% of the table, since it doesn't make sense to
> > > move a tuple from page 2 to page 1 in a 1000 page table.
> >
> > This % could be depending on some "fill factor" of the table, aiming not
> > to move tuples, that would end up in the final volume of a balance
> > table, which, in case of heavily updated table, would probably be 2 to 3
> > times the volume of densely populated table.
> >
> > > Another possibility is to always go to the FSM and to have the FSM hand
> > > back the page that is closest to the new tuple according to a certain
> > > index. This would allow for ALTER TABLE CLUSTER to be much more
> > > self-maintaining. The downside is that you'd have to do a lookup on that
> > > index, but presumably if the index is important enough to cluster on
> > > then it should be well-cached. There's probably some other tweaks that
> > > could be done as well to make this more performant.
> >
> > Yes, I agree on all your points about better placement of new tuples,
> > all they would be useful indeed.
>
> Sounds like a TODO, barring objections...
> --
> Jim C. Nasby, Sr. Engineering Consultant jnasby(at)pervasive(dot)com
> Pervasive Software http://pervasive.com work: 512-231-6117
> vcard: http://jim.nasby.net/pervasive.vcf cell: 512-569-9461
>
--
Bruce Momjian http://candle.pha.pa.us
SRA OSS, Inc. http://www.sraoss.com
+ If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. +
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Bruce Momjian | 2006-03-03 03:15:19 | Re: Vertical Partitioning with TOAST |
Previous Message | Christopher Browne | 2006-03-03 03:04:28 | Re: PostgreSQL Anniversary Summit, Call for Contributions |