| From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Dilip Kumar <dilipbalaut(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)bowt(dot)ie>, Masahiko Sawada <sawada(dot)mshk(at)gmail(dot)com>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: decoupling table and index vacuum |
| Date: | 2022-02-10 19:16:11 |
| Message-ID: | CA+TgmoaEDL1cErKJfASgMy_eqOLzA+XDTdD2J_+FCkO1tXc4bQ@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Thu, Feb 10, 2022 at 3:10 AM Dilip Kumar <dilipbalaut(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> Actually I was not worried about the scan getting slow. What I was
> worried about is if we keep ignoring the dead tuples for long time
> then in the worst case if we have huge number of dead tuples in the
> index maybe 80% to 90% and then suddenly if we get a lot of insertion
> for the keys which can not use bottom up deletion (due to the key
> range). So now we have a lot of pages which have only dead tuples but
> we will still allocate new pages because we ignored the dead tuple %
> and did not vacuum for a long time.
It seems like a reasonable concern to me ... and I think it's somewhat
related to my comments about trying to distinguish which dead tuples
matter vs. which don't.
--
Robert Haas
EDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Peter Geoghegan | 2022-02-10 19:21:30 | Re: decoupling table and index vacuum |
| Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2022-02-10 19:13:56 | Re: decoupling table and index vacuum |