From: | "Jim C(dot) Nasby" <jim(at)nasby(dot)net> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Kim <kim(at)myemma(dot)com>, pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: [HACKERS] unusual performance for vac following 8.2 upgrade |
Date: | 2007-01-11 21:16:09 |
Message-ID: | 20070111211609.GT36267@nasby.net |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers pgsql-performance |
On Thu, Jan 11, 2007 at 04:49:28PM -0300, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> Tom Lane wrote:
>
> > What I think we need to do about this is
> >
> > (1) fix pgstat_vacuum_tabstats to have non-O(N^2) behavior; I'm thinking
> > of using a hash table for the OIDs instead of a linear list. Should be
> > a pretty small change; I'll work on it today.
> >
> > (2) Reconsider whether last-vacuum-time should be sent to the collector
> > unconditionally.
>
> (2) seems a perfectly reasonably answer, but ISTM (1) would be good to
> have anyway (at least in HEAD).
Actually, I'd rather see the impact #1 has before adding #2... If #1
means we're good for even someone with 10M relations, I don't see much
point in #2.
BTW, we're now starting to see more users with a large number of
relations, thanks to partitioning. It would probably be wise to expand
test coverage for that case, especially when it comes to performance.
--
Jim Nasby jim(at)nasby(dot)net
EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com 512.569.9461 (cell)
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2007-01-11 21:16:22 | Re: [HACKERS] Checkpoint request failed on version 8.2.1. |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2007-01-11 21:11:40 | Re: [HACKERS] unusual performance for vac following 8.2 upgrade |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Kim | 2007-01-11 21:52:23 | Re: unusual performance for vac following 8.2 upgrade |
Previous Message | Carlos H. Reimer | 2007-01-11 21:14:51 | RES: Improving SQL performance |