From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
To: Pavan Deolasee <pavan.deolasee@gmail.com>
Cc: pgsql-patches <pgsql-patches@postgresql.org>
Subject: Re: VACUUM Improvements - WIP Patch
Date: Sat, 12 Jul 2008 13:32:13 -0400
Message-ID: <21751.1215883933@sss.pgh.pa.us> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <2e78013d0806092232h6ca15ffejcbcd24e88401308f@mail.gmail.com>
References: <2e78013d0806092232h6ca15ffejcbcd24e88401308f@mail.gmail.com>
"Pavan Deolasee" <pavan.deolasee@gmail.com> writes:
> Here is a WIP patch based on the discussions here:
> http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2008-05/msg00863.php
I do not like this patch in any way, shape, or form.
(1) It's enormously overcomplicated, and therefore fragile.
(2) It achieves speedup of VACUUM by pushing work onto subsequent
regular accesses of the page, which is exactly the wrong thing.
Worse, once you count the disk writes those accesses will induce it's
not even clear that there's any genuine savings.
(3) The fact that it doesn't work until concurrent transactions have
gone away makes it of extremely dubious value in real-world scenarios,
as already noted by Simon.
It strikes me that what you are trying to do here is compensate for
a bad decision in the HOT patch, which was to have VACUUM's first
pass prune/defrag a page even when we know we are going to have to
come back to that page later. What about trying to fix things so
that if the page contains line pointers that need to be removed,
the first pass doesn't dirty it at all, but leaves all the work
to be done at the second visit? I think that since heap_page_prune
has been refactored into a "scan" followed by an "apply", it'd be
possible to decide before the "apply" step whether this is the case
or not.
regards, tom lane
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Reply to all the recipients using the --to and --cc options:
reply via email
To: pgsql-patches@postgresql.org
Cc: tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us, pavan.deolasee@gmail.com
Subject: Re: VACUUM Improvements - WIP Patch
In-Reply-To: <21751.1215883933@sss.pgh.pa.us>
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
This inbox is served by DDX for PostgreSQL; see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox