Re: [HACKERS] Trivial patch to double vacuum speed on tables with no indexes

Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> writes:

> Tom Lane wrote:
>> Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> writes:
>> > Patch applied. Thanks.
>>
>> Wait a minute. This patch changes the behavior so that
>> LockBufferForCleanup is applied to *every* heap page, not only the ones
>> where there are removable tuples. It's not hard to imagine scenarios
>> where that results in severe system-wide performance degradation.
>> Has there been any real-world testing of this idea?
>
> I see the no-index case now:
>
> + if (nindexes)
> + LockBuffer(buf, BUFFER_LOCK_SHARE);
> + else
> + LockBufferForCleanup(buf);
>
> Let's see what Greg says, or revert.

Hm, that's a good point. I could return it to the original method where it
released the share lock and did he LockBufferForCleanup only if necessary. I
thought it was awkward to acquire a lock then release it to acquire a
different lock on the same buffer but it's true that it doesn't always have to
acquire the second lock.

--
Gregory Stark
EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com