From: Andres Freund <andres@2ndquadrant.com>
To: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@2ndquadrant.com>
Cc: Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us>
Cc: Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>
Cc: Peter Geoghegan <peter@2ndquadrant.com>
Cc: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Cc: Andrew Dunstan <andrew@dunslane.net>
Cc: PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>
Subject: Re: [PERFORM] encouraging index-only scans
Date: Fri, 6 Sep 2013 15:08:54 +0200
Message-ID: <20130906130854.GB600952@alap2.anarazel.de> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20130906052236.GF6067@eldon.alvh.no-ip.org>
References: <50C90154.8060103@dunslane.net>
<50C904DB.9090305@dunslane.net>
<20121213024837.GB22363@momjian.us>
<23298.1355370698@sss.pgh.pa.us>
<CAEYLb_U1dTg=bXkDL=yvFTrMw5oC13ivgZA=jdQXnbgaDJ+e-Q@mail.gmail.com>
<20130904205655.GR21874@momjian.us>
<20130906001437.GA29264@momjian.us>
<CA+Tgmobh_-n-GvKX++DVctToZ9SZkdhvszP=CBjh9XZOvWsTEg@mail.gmail.com>
<20130906020043.GH27195@momjian.us>
<20130906052236.GF6067@eldon.alvh.no-ip.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:majordomo@postgresql.org?body=unsub%20pgsql-hackers>
On 2013-09-06 01:22:36 -0400, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> I think it's shortsighted to keep thinking of autovacuum as just a way
> to run VACUUM and ANALYZE. We have already discussed work items that
> need to be done separately, such as truncating the last few empty pages
> on a relation that was vacuumed recently. We also need to process a GIN
> index' pending insertion list; and with minmax indexes I will want to
> run summarization of heap page ranges.
Agreed.
> So maybe instead of trying to think of VM bit setting as part of vacuum,
> we could just keep stats about how many pages we might need to scan
> because of possibly needing to set the bit, and then doing that in
> autovacuum, independently from actually vacuuming the relation.
I am not sure I understand this though. What would be the point to go
and set all visible and not do the rest of the vacuuming work?
I think triggering vacuuming by scanning the visibility map for the
number of unset bits and use that as another trigger is a good idea. The
vm should ensure we're not doing superflous work.
Greetings,
Andres Freund
--
Andres Freund http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
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-performance@postgresql.org
Cc: andres@2ndquadrant.com, alvherre@2ndquadrant.com, bruce@momjian.us, robertmhaas@gmail.com, peter@2ndquadrant.com, tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us, andrew@dunslane.net, pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: [PERFORM] encouraging index-only scans
In-Reply-To: <20130906130854.GB600952@alap2.anarazel.de>
* 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