RE: [HACKERS] vacuum process size

From: "Hiroshi Inoue" <Inoue(at)tpf(dot)co(dot)jp>
To: "Tom Lane" <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, <t-ishii(at)sra(dot)co(dot)jp>
Cc: "Mike Mascari" <mascarim(at)yahoo(dot)com>, <pgsql-hackers(at)postgreSQL(dot)org>
Subject: RE: [HACKERS] vacuum process size
Date: 1999-08-25 01:11:42
Message-ID: 000d01beee96$caa700c0$2801007e@cadzone.tpf.co.jp
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Tom Lane [mailto:tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us]
> Sent: Wednesday, August 25, 1999 1:20 AM
> To: t-ishii(at)sra(dot)co(dot)jp
> Cc: Mike Mascari; Hiroshi Inoue; pgsql-hackers(at)postgreSQL(dot)org
> Subject: Re: [HACKERS] vacuum process size
>
>
> I have been looking some more at the vacuum-process-size issue, and
> I am having a hard time understanding why the VPageList data structure
> is the critical one. As far as I can see, there should be at most one
> pointer in it for each disk page of the relation. OK, you were
> vacuuming a table with something like a quarter million pages, so
> the end size of the VPageList would have been something like a megabyte,
> and given the inefficient usage of repalloc() in the original code,
> a lot more space than that would have been wasted as the list grew.
> So doubling the array size at each step is a good change.
>
> But there are a lot more tuples than pages in most relations.
>
> I see two lists with per-tuple data in vacuum.c, "vtlinks" in
> vc_scanheap and "vtmove" in vc_rpfheap, that are both being grown with
> essentially the same technique of repalloc() after every N entries.
> I'm not entirely clear on how many tuples get put into each of these
> lists, but it sure seems like in ordinary circumstances they'd be much
> bigger space hogs than any of the three VPageList lists.
>

AFAIK,both vtlinks and vtmove are NULL if vacuum is executed
without concurrent transactions.
They won't be so big unless loooong concurrent transactions exist.

Regards.

Hiroshi Inoue
Inoue(at)tpf(dot)co(dot)jp

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Richard Bouska 1999-08-25 06:36:10 pg_log 100MB per day !!! on 5MB of data
Previous Message Bruce Momjian 1999-08-25 00:22:16 Re: [HACKERS] vacuum process size