| From: | Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)heroku(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Pete Stevenson <etep(dot)nosnevets(at)gmail(dot)com>, Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnaka(at)iki(dot)fi> |
| Subject: | Re: MVCC overheads |
| Date: | 2016-07-08 18:49:26 |
| Message-ID: | CAM3SWZQ_6bXLa3QFE-Q-yF-=-M8mXbyxCzXRSs5q-vpNa8UQ_g@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Fri, Jul 8, 2016 at 11:44 AM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
>> Sure, but we could *also* do it separately, splitting VACUUMs tasks of
>> tuple freezing, page compaction, and index entry removal each into
>> separate tasks.
>
> Uh ... wouldn't that tend to make things worse? The knocks on VACUUM are
> too much I/O and too much latency for cleanup, and I can't see how
> splitting it does anything good on either score.
Has anyone ever done any kind of write-up of the "TED" design that was
discussed during FOSDEM (I hope I recall the name it was given
correctly)? Apparently that's something that's been discussed a few
times among senior community members, and I think it has promise.
--
Peter Geoghegan
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Andres Freund | 2016-07-08 18:52:21 | Re: Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Avoid extra locks in GetSnapshotData if old_snapshot_threshold < |
| Previous Message | Kevin Grittner | 2016-07-08 18:45:57 | Re: MVCC overheads |