From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)alvh(dot)no-ip(dot)org> |
Cc: | Masahiko Sawada <sawada(dot)mshk(at)gmail(dot)com>, Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: VACUUM (DISABLE_PAGE_SKIPPING on) |
Date: | 2020-11-20 15:38:55 |
Message-ID: | CA+TgmoYyBJxgXG+fddWZJhofU9+XFYOT_kht9n+xY3HU6ykwrw@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Fri, Nov 20, 2020 at 9:08 AM Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)alvh(dot)no-ip(dot)org> wrote:
> There are two costs associated with this processing. One is dirtying
> the page (which means it needs to be written down when evicted), and the
> other is to write WAL records for each change. The cost for the latter
> is going to be the same in both cases (with this change and without)
> because the same WAL will have to be written -- the only difference is
> *when* do you pay it. The cost of the former is quite different; with
> Simon's patch we dirty the page once, and without the patch we may dirty
> it several times before it becomes "stable" and no more writes are done
> to it.
>
> (If you have tables whose pages change all the time, there would be no
> difference with or without the patch.)
>
> Dirtying the page less times means less full-page images to WAL, too,
> which can be significant.
Yeah, I think dirtying the page fewer times is a big win. However, a
page may have tuples that are not yet all-visible, and we can't freeze
those just because we are freezing others.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Peter Eisentraut | 2020-11-20 15:45:59 | Re: Prevent printing "next step instructions" in initdb and pg_upgrade |
Previous Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2020-11-20 15:33:40 | Re: VACUUM (DISABLE_PAGE_SKIPPING on) |