From: | Tomas Vondra <tomas(dot)vondra(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Haribabu Kommi <kommi(dot)haribabu(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: VACUUM and ANALYZE disagreeing on what reltuples means |
Date: | 2017-09-24 18:39:03 |
Message-ID: | 94f58897-861b-accf-a9f1-af4be816c0d3@2ndquadrant.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 09/06/2017 09:45 AM, Haribabu Kommi wrote:
>
>
> On Tue, Jul 25, 2017 at 9:33 PM, Tomas Vondra
> <tomas(dot)vondra(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com <mailto:tomas(dot)vondra(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>> wrote:
>
> On 7/25/17 12:55 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
>
> Tomas Vondra <tomas(dot)vondra(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com
> <mailto:tomas(dot)vondra(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>> writes:
>
> It seems to me that VACUUM and ANALYZE somewhat disagree on what
> exactly reltuples means. VACUUM seems to be thinking that
> reltuples
> = live + dead while ANALYZE apparently believes that reltuples =
> live
>
>
> The question is - which of the reltuples definitions is the
> right
> one? I've always assumed that "reltuples = live + dead" but
> perhaps
> not?
>
>
> I think the planner basically assumes that reltuples is the live
> tuple count, so maybe we'd better change VACUUM to get in step.
>
>
> Attached is a patch that (I think) does just that. The disagreement
> was caused by VACUUM treating recently dead tuples as live, while
> ANALYZE treats both of those as dead.
>
> At first I was worried that this will negatively affect plans in the
> long-running transaction, as it will get underestimates (due to
> reltuples not including rows it can see). But that's a problem we
> already have anyway, you just need to run ANALYZE in the other session.
>
>
> Thanks for the patch.
> From the mail, I understand that this patch tries to improve the
> reltuples value update in the catalog table by the vacuum command
> to consider the proper visible tuples similar like analyze command.
>
> -num_tuples);
> +num_tuples - nkeep);
>
> With the above correction, there is a problem in reporting the number
> of live tuples to the stats.
>
> postgres=# select reltuples, n_live_tup, n_dead_tup
> from pg_stat_user_tables join pg_class using (relname)
> where relname = 't';
> reltuples | n_live_tup | n_dead_tup
> -----------+------------+------------
> 899818 | 799636 | 100182
> (1 row)
>
>
> The live tuples data value is again decremented with dead tuples
> value before sending them to stats in function lazy_vacuum_rel(),
>
> /* report results to the stats collector, too */
> new_live_tuples = new_rel_tuples - vacrelstats->new_dead_tuples;
>
> The fix needs a correction here also. Or change the correction in
> lazy_vacuum_rel() function itself before updating catalog table similar
> like stats.
>
Ah, haven't noticed that for some reason - you're right, we estimate the
reltuples based on (num_tuples - nkeep), so it doesn't make much sense
to subtract nkeep again. Attached is v2 of the fix.
I've removed the subtraction from lazy_vacuum_rel(), leaving just
new_live_tuples = new_rel_tuples;
and now it behaves as expected (no second subtraction). That means we
can get rid of new_live_tuples altogether (and the protection against
negative values), and use new_rel_tuples directly.
Which pretty much means that in this case
(pg_class.reltuples == pg_stat_user_tables.n_live_tup)
but I guess that's fine, based on the initial discussion in this thread.
regards
--
Tomas Vondra http://www.2ndQuadrant.com
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
Attachment | Content-Type | Size |
---|---|---|
vacuum-reltuples-fix-v2.patch | text/x-patch | 1.3 KB |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tomas Vondra | 2017-09-24 19:37:17 | Re: VACUUM and ANALYZE disagreeing on what reltuples means |
Previous Message | Mark Rofail | 2017-09-24 17:50:11 | Re: GSoC 2017: Foreign Key Arrays |