| From: | Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)bowt(dot)ie> |
|---|---|
| To: | Pavel Luzanov <p(dot)luzanov(at)postgrespro(dot)ru> |
| Cc: | "pgsql-generallists(dot)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-general(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>, Melanie Plageman <melanieplageman(at)gmail(dot)com>, Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnaka(at)iki(dot)fi> |
| Subject: | Re: PG17 optimizations to vacuum |
| Date: | 2024-09-01 22:00:25 |
| Message-ID: | CAH2-Wz=pCtsB3v42RB5dLnzEn3tQLUJ8fJMn+si-9A8s6v=B1A@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-general |
On Sun, Sep 1, 2024 at 5:44 PM Pavel Luzanov <p(dot)luzanov(at)postgrespro(dot)ru> wrote:
> I see a perfectly working TID-store optimization.
> With reduced maintenance_work_mem it used only one 'vacuuming indexes'
> phase instead of 21 in v16.
> But I also expected to see a reduction in the number of WAL records
> and the total size of the WAL. Instead, WAL numbers have significantly
> degraded.
>
> What am I doing wrong?
That does seem weird.
CC'ing the authors of the relevant VACUUM enhancements.
--
Peter Geoghegan
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | xiong ding | 2024-09-02 01:48:52 | Could we go back in a replication slot? |
| Previous Message | Pavel Luzanov | 2024-09-01 21:44:40 | PG17 optimizations to vacuum |