public inbox for [email protected]
help / color / mirror / Atom feedRe: PG17 optimizations to vacuum
2+ messages / 2 participants
[nested] [flat]
* Re: PG17 optimizations to vacuum
@ 2024-09-01 22:00 Peter Geoghegan <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 1 reply; 2+ messages in thread
From: Peter Geoghegan @ 2024-09-01 22:00 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Pavel Luzanov <[email protected]>; +Cc: pgsql-generallists.postgresql.org <[email protected]>; Melanie Plageman <[email protected]>; Heikki Linnakangas <[email protected]>
On Sun, Sep 1, 2024 at 5:44 PM Pavel Luzanov <[email protected]> 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
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2+ messages in thread
* Re: PG17 optimizations to vacuum
@ 2024-09-02 17:28 Melanie Plageman <[email protected]>
parent: Peter Geoghegan <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2+ messages in thread
From: Melanie Plageman @ 2024-09-02 17:28 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Peter Geoghegan <[email protected]>; +Cc: Pavel Luzanov <[email protected]>; pgsql-generallists.postgresql.org <[email protected]>; Heikki Linnakangas <[email protected]>
On Sun, Sep 1, 2024 at 6:00 PM Peter Geoghegan <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> On Sun, Sep 1, 2024 at 5:44 PM Pavel Luzanov <[email protected]> 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?
I'll investigate more tomorrow, but based on my initial investigation,
there appears to be some interaction related to how much of the
relation is in shared buffers after creating the table and updating
it. If you set shared_buffers sufficiently high and prewarm the table
after the update, master has fewer WAL records reported by vacuum
verbose.
- Melanie
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2024-09-02 17:28 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 2+ messages (download: mbox mbox.gz follow: Atom feed)
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2024-09-01 22:00 Re: PG17 optimizations to vacuum Peter Geoghegan <[email protected]>
2024-09-02 17:28 ` Melanie Plageman <[email protected]>
This inbox is served by agora; see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox