From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> |
Cc: | Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>, Gregory Stark <gsstark(at)mit(dot)edu>, pgsql-patches(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: [pgsql-patches] Recalculating OldestXmin in a long-running vacuum |
Date: | 2007-02-01 18:19:29 |
Message-ID: | 20222.1170353969@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-patches |
Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> writes:
> I have two runs of DBT-2, one with the patch and one without.
> Patched:
> autovac "public.stock" scans:1 pages:1285990(-0)
> tuples:25303056(-2671265) CPU 95.22s/38.02u sec elapsed 10351.17 sec
> Unpatched:
> autovac "public.stock" scans:1 pages:1284504(-0)
> tuples:25001369(-1973760) CPU 86.55s/34.70u sec elapsed 9628.13 sec
So that makes this patch a good idea why? (Maybe what we need to see
is the impact on the total elapsed time for the DBT-2 test, rather
than just the VACUUM runtime.)
BTW I've got serious reservations about whether this bit is safe:
> + /* The table could've grown since vacuum started, and there
> + * might already be dead tuples on the new pages. Catch them
> + * as well. Also, we want to include any live tuples in the
> + * new pages in the statistics.
> + */
> + nblocks = RelationGetNumberOfBlocks(onerel);
I seem to recall some assumptions somewhere in the system that a vacuum
won't visit newly-added pages.
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Bruce Momjian | 2007-02-01 18:33:36 | Re: [pgsql-patches] Patch to avoid gprofprofilingoverwrites |
Previous Message | Heikki Linnakangas | 2007-02-01 17:53:35 | Re: [pgsql-patches] Recalculating OldestXmin in a long-running vacuum |