| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | David Rowley <dgrowleyml(at)gmail(dot)com>, Tomas Vondra <tomas(dot)vondra(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, Ahmed Yarub Hani Al Nuaimi <ahmedyarubhani(at)gmail(dot)com>, Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Lock-free compaction. Why not? |
| Date: | 2024-07-18 18:21:30 |
| Message-ID: | 3781612.1721326890@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> On Thu, Jul 18, 2024 at 7:08 AM David Rowley <dgrowleyml(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>> I think the primary issue with the old way was index bloat wasn't
>> fixed. The release notes for 9.0 do claim the CLUSTER method "is
>> substantially faster in most cases", however, I imagine there are
>> plenty of cases where it wouldn't be. e.g, it's hard to imagine
>> rewriting the entire 1TB table and indexes is cheaper than moving 1
>> row out of place row.
> The other thing I remember besides index bloat is that it was
> crushingly slow.
Yeah. The old way was great if there really were just a few tuples
needing to be moved ... but by the time you decide you need VACUUM
FULL rather than plain VACUUM, that's unlikely to be the case.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Nathan Bossart | 2024-07-18 18:22:10 | Re: improve performance of pg_dump with many sequences |
| Previous Message | Corey Huinker | 2024-07-18 18:17:38 | July Commitfest: Entries Needing Review |