From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Larry Rosenman <ler(at)lerctr(dot)org> |
Cc: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: CLUSTER VERBOSE (9.1.3) |
Date: | 2012-03-07 14:57:41 |
Message-ID: | CA+TgmoZsLTMiqyyxCab0AV-pYuu6Hg0G+6jQ_2_HgQFVkgPjjg@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Wed, Mar 7, 2012 at 9:33 AM, Larry Rosenman <ler(at)lerctr(dot)org> wrote:
>>> Is there any way to get more info out of CLUSTER VERBOSE so it
>>> says what index it's working on AFTER the table re-write?
>>>
>>> INFO: clustering "public.values" using sequential scan and sort
>>> INFO: "values": found 0 removable, 260953511 nonremovable row
>>> versions in 4224437 pages DETAIL: 0 dead row versions cannot be
>>> removed yet. CPU 168.02s/4324.68u sec elapsed 8379.12 sec.
>>>
>>>
>>> And at this point it's doing something(tm), I assume re-doing the
>>> indexes.
>>>
>>> It would be nice(tm) to get more info.
>>>
>>> Ideas?
>>
>> Try setting client_min_messages=DEBUG1. At least on current
>> sources that gives some additional, relevant output; I think that's
>> probably there in 9.1.x as well.
>>
> Thanks. That helps some, but I'd like to see:
> 1) these moved up to INFO when CLUSTER VERBOSE
> 2) time/statistics on each index build
>
> INFO: clustering "public.values" using sequential scan and sort
> INFO: "values": found 0 removable, 260953511 nonremovable row
> versions in 4224437 pages
> DETAIL: 0 dead row versions cannot be removed yet.
> CPU 167.57s/4325.52u sec elapsed 7687.28 sec.
> DEBUG: building index "values_idx1" on table "values"
> DEBUG: building index "values_idx2" on table "values"
> DEBUG: building index "values_idx3" on table "values"
> DEBUG: building index "values_idx4" on table "values"
> DEBUG: building index "values_idx5" on table "values"
> DEBUG: building index "values_idx6" on table "values"
> DEBUG: building index "values_idx7" on table "values"
> DEBUG: building index "values_idx_cluster" on table "values"
> CLUSTER
> Time: 28997806.474 ms
>
> Comments?
Seems like a good enhancement to me, if someone can figure out how to
do it cleanly. Unfortunately those debug messages may not be in a
place where it's real easy for them to know whether they're being
called from CLUSTER VERBOSE or not, so it might take a little thought
to produce a clean patch for this.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Robert Haas | 2012-03-07 14:59:00 | Re: RFC: Making TRUNCATE more "MVCC-safe" |
Previous Message | Larry Rosenman | 2012-03-07 14:33:22 | Re: CLUSTER VERBOSE (9.1.3) |