From: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
---|---|
To: | Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnaka(at)iki(dot)fi> |
Cc: | Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: drop/truncate table sucks for large values of shared buffers |
Date: | 2015-07-02 13:12:37 |
Message-ID: | 20150702131237.GA16267@alap3.anarazel.de |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 2015-07-02 16:08:03 +0300, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
> I'm marking this as "returned with feedback" in the commitfest. In addition
> to the issues raised so far, ISTM that the patch makes dropping a very large
> table with small shared_buffers slower (DropForkSpecificBuffers() is O(n)
> where n is the size of the relation, while the current method is
> O(shared_buffers))
I think upthread there was talk about only using the O(relsize) approach
if relsize << NBuffers. That's actually a pretty common scenario,
especially in testsuites.
> I concur that we should explore using a radix tree or something else that
> would naturally allow you to find all buffers for relation/database X
> quickly.
I unsurprisingly think that's the right way to go. But I'm not sure if
it's not worth to add another layer of bandaid till were there...
Greetings,
Andres Freund
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Amit Kapila | 2015-07-02 13:18:47 | Re: drop/truncate table sucks for large values of shared buffers |
Previous Message | Andrew Dunstan | 2015-07-02 13:08:07 | Re: raw output from copy |