| From: | Masahiko Sawada <masahiko(dot)sawada(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Kasahara Tatsuhito <kasahara(dot)tatsuhito(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Fujii Masao <masao(dot)fujii(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: small improvement of the elapsed time for truncating heap in vacuum |
| Date: | 2020-02-17 04:07:00 |
| Message-ID: | CA+fd4k7MA3iFQr4qzvaQ_HH_HJdYgvxsTuox5pFcJATnL3R3og@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Mon, 17 Feb 2020 at 12:44, Kasahara Tatsuhito
<kasahara(dot)tatsuhito(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> On Fri, Feb 14, 2020 at 4:50 PM Fujii Masao <masao(dot)fujii(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> > Regarding the patch, isn't it better to put pg_rusage_init() at the
> > top of do loop block? If we do this, as a side-effect, we can get
> > rid of pg_rusage_init() at the top of lazy_truncate_heap().
> Thanks for your reply.
> Yeah, it makes sense.
>
> Attached patch moves pg_rusage_init() to the top of do-loop-block.
+1 to reset for each truncation loops.
For the patch, we can put also the declaration of ru0 into the loop.
Regards,
--
Masahiko Sawada http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Takashi Menjo | 2020-02-17 04:12:37 | RE: [PoC] Non-volatile WAL buffer |
| Previous Message | Justin Pryzby | 2020-02-17 03:57:31 | Re: error context for vacuum to include block number |