From: | Masahiko Sawada <sawada(dot)mshk(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | xu jian <jamesxu(at)outlook(dot)com> |
Cc: | "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: [HACKERS] postgres 1 个(共 2 个) can pg 9.6 vacuum freeze skip page on index? |
Date: | 2016-12-01 14:06:15 |
Message-ID: | CAD21AoAiB=tBy97RuLQFbFm9=F1Z1vfBxzMt=a8L02XG-E0rng@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Thu, Dec 1, 2016 at 1:33 AM, xu jian <jamesxu(at)outlook(dot)com> wrote:
> Hello,
>
> Please execute me if I am using the wrong mailing list, but I ask the
> question in pgsql-admin, looks like no one know the answer.
>
>
> we upgraded our pg db to 9.6, as we know, pg9.6 doesn't need full table scan
> in vacuum freeze.
>
> http://rhaas.blogspot.com/2016/03/no-more-full-table-vacuums.html
>
>
> so we think if we have run vacuum freeze on the table, and there is no
> change on table which has been vacuum freeze before it should finish super
> faster.
>
>
> However, it doesn't look like we expect. the next run of vacuum freeze still
> take long time. Then we run vacuum freeze with verbose. we notice it spends
> long time on scanning index.
>
> it seems even all rows are frozen on the data page, vacuum freeze still
> needs to scan all the index pages. if we drop the index, then vacuum freeze
> finishes immediately.
>
>
> Does anyone know if it is true?
Yeah that's true. The vacuum on each index is required in order to
update index statistics even if no updating on table.
> Btw, our table is large, and has about 40GB index files. is there anyway to
> make the vacuum freeze faster in this case?
I guess that there is no way.
Regards,
--
Masahiko Sawada
NIPPON TELEGRAPH AND TELEPHONE CORPORATION
NTT Open Source Software Center
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Fabien COELHO | 2016-12-01 14:15:43 | Re: pgbench - allow backslash continuations in \set expressions |
Previous Message | Ashutosh Bapat | 2016-12-01 13:01:58 | Re: [RFC] Should we fix postmaster to avoid slow shutdown? |