From: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
---|---|
To: | Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)bowt(dot)ie> |
Cc: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: decoupling table and index vacuum |
Date: | 2021-04-24 18:43:12 |
Message-ID: | 20210424184312.pkmzao6iohl5letf@alap3.anarazel.de |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Hi,
On 2021-04-24 11:21:49 -0700, Peter Geoghegan wrote:
> To expand on this a bit, my objection to counting the number of live
> tuples in the index (as a means to determining how aggressively each
> individual index needs to be vacuumed) is this: it's driven by
> positive feedback, not negative feedback. We should focus on *extreme*
> adverse events (e.g., version-driven page splits) instead. We don't
> even need to understand ordinary adverse events (e.g., how many dead
> tuples are in the index).
I don't see how that's good enough as a general approach. It won't work
on indexes that insert on one end, delete from the other (think
inserted_at or serial primary keys in many workloads).
Greetings,
Andres Freund
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Peter Geoghegan | 2021-04-24 18:59:29 | Re: decoupling table and index vacuum |
Previous Message | Peter Geoghegan | 2021-04-24 18:21:49 | Re: decoupling table and index vacuum |