From: Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us>
To: Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>
Cc: Andres Freund <andres@2ndquadrant.com>
Cc: Jim Nasby <jim@nasby.net>
Cc: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@2ndquadrant.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, 31 Jan 2014 22:22:07 -0500
Message-ID: <20140201032207.GD31141@momjian.us> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CA+TgmoZQyt253OA_ssD6OVs8o0-RkRz3eK6qZz3Utwp-2QVf6A@mail.gmail.com>
References: <20130906163056.GA13158@momjian.us>
<20130906163647.GA626072@alap2.anarazel.de>
<20130906170159.GB13158@momjian.us>
<20130906191330.GA13193@momjian.us>
<20130906222623.GC626072@alap2.anarazel.de>
<20130907002908.GA12753@momjian.us>
<20130907053449.GE626072@alap2.anarazel.de>
<5238854F.5040708@nasby.net>
<20130917231050.GD29545@awork2.anarazel.de>
<CA+TgmoZQyt253OA_ssD6OVs8o0-RkRz3eK6qZz3Utwp-2QVf6A@mail.gmail.com>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:majordomo@postgresql.org?body=unsub%20pgsql-hackers>
On Thu, Sep 19, 2013 at 02:39:43PM -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
> Right now, whether or not to autovacuum is the rest of a two-pronged
> test. The first prong is based on number of updates and deletes
> relative to table size; that triggers a regular autovacuum. The
> second prong is based on age(relfrozenxid) and triggers a
> non-page-skipping vacuum (colloquially, an anti-wraparound vacuum).
>
> The typical case in which this doesn't work out well is when the table
> has a lot of inserts but few or no updates and deletes. So I propose
> that we change the first prong to count inserts as well as updates and
> deletes when deciding whether it needs to vacuum the table. We
> already use that calculation to decide whether to auto-analyze, so it
> wouldn't be very novel. We know that the work of marking pages
> all-visible will need to be done at some point, and doing it sooner
> will result in doing it in smaller batches, which seems generally
> good.
>
> However, I do have one concern: it might lead to excessive
> index-vacuuming. Right now, we skip the index vac step only if there
> ZERO dead tuples are found during the heap scan. Even one dead tuple
> (or line pointer) will cause an index vac cycle, which may easily be
> excessive. So I further propose that we introduce a threshold for
> index-vac; so that we only do index vac cycle if the number of dead
> tuples exceeds, say 0.1% of the table size.
>
> Thoughts? Let the hurling of rotten tomatoes begin.
Robert, where are we on this? Should I post a patch?
--
Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> http://momjian.us
EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com
+ Everyone has their own god. +
--
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: bruce@momjian.us, robertmhaas@gmail.com, andres@2ndquadrant.com, jim@nasby.net, alvherre@2ndquadrant.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: <20140201032207.GD31141@momjian.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