Re: insert/update performance

Hi,

The vacuum doesn't recycle the rows obsoleted by update? I don't think
so. In the above vacuum result, I do not delete any rows, but the
vacuum still recycles a fraction of rows, obviously they're obsoleted
by update.

I know plain vacuum (without full option) do not reduce the size of
the whole table file/segments, but it should refresh the fsm. In my
case, the update statement did modify the index column, but is it
related to the fsm? I think anyways, the update would obsolete
previous versions, as long as they are not hold by any active
transactions, they would be recycled and count in the fsm, right? I
just cannot understand why the recycle ratio is not 50%.

Regards,
Jinhua Luo

2016-01-23 15:13 GMT+08:00 Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com>:
> On Sat, Jan 23, 2016 at 12:13 PM, Jinhua Luo <luajit(dot)io(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>>
>> Hi All,
>>
>> Here is my test environment:
>>
>> postgresql 9.4.5, Ubuntu 14.04, 8 CPU core, 8GB ram, SCSI hard disk
>>
>> I have a table with 70 columns, and 6 indexes. The data flow is a
>> special OLTP model: frequent inserts (2000 tps), and each inserted row
>> would be updated very soon (i.e. the number of inserts is equal to the
>> number of updates).
>>
>>
>> At last, I found it's not the problem of autovacuum.
>> I do a simple test: I truncate the table, disable the autovacuum, and
>> run the application for a few minutes, then I invokes vacuum manually,
>> it gives a strange output:
>> found 598 removable, 25662 nonremovable row versions in 3476 pages
>> DETAIL: 0 dead row versions cannot be removed yet
>>
>> As said before, the number of inserts is equal to the number of
>> updates. So the bloat of the table should be 100%, and the number of
>> removable rows should be equal to the number of nonremovable rows,
>> which is the real number of inserts issued by the application.
>>
>> But the result shows that the number of nonremovable rows is just a
>> small fraction. If it's true, then no wonder that the table would keep
>> extending for a long time, because the free space is almost small.
>>
>> Why the free space after vacuum is not 50% of the original size in my
>> case?
>>
>
> Vacuum just removes the deleted rows (provided they are not visible to
> any active transaction), it won't reduce the size which is already extended,
> unless the empty space is at end of relation.
>
> Are you updating any index column?
>
> I think if you should once try with higher fill factor as you have lot
> of updates.
>
>
>
> With Regards,
> Amit Kapila.
> EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com