Re: [HACKERS] vacuum process size

From: Tatsuo Ishii <t-ishii(at)sra(dot)co(dot)jp>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: Tatsuo Ishii <t-ishii(at)sra(dot)co(dot)jp>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgreSQL(dot)org
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] vacuum process size
Date: 1999-08-19 08:54:00
Message-ID: 199908190854.RAA02572@srapc451.sra.co.jp
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

>Tatsuo Ishii <t-ishii(at)sra(dot)co(dot)jp> writes:
>> Just for a testing I made a huge table (>2GB and it has 10000000
>> tuples). copy 10000000 tuples took 23 minutes. This is not so
>> bad. Vacuum analyze took 11 minutes, not too bad. After this I created
>> an index on int4 column. It took 9 minutes. Next I deleted 5000000
>> tuples to see how long delete took. I found it was 6
>> minutes. Good. Then I ran into a problem. After that I did vacuum
>> analyze, and seemed it took forever! (actually took 47 minutes). The
>> biggest problem was postgres's process size. It was 478MB! This is not
>> acceptable for me. Any idea?
>
>Yeah, I've complained about that before --- it seems that vacuum takes
>a really unreasonable amount of time to remove dead tuples from an index.
>It's been like that at least since 6.3.2, probably longer.

Hiroshi came up with a work around for this(see included
patches). After applying it, the process size shrinked from 478MB to
86MB! (the processing time did not descrease, however). According to
him, repalloc seems not very effective with large number of calls. The
patches probably descreases the number to 1/10.
--
Tatsuo Ishii

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
*** vacuum.c.orig Sat Jul 3 09:32:40 1999
--- vacuum.c Thu Aug 19 17:34:18 1999
***************
*** 2519,2530 ****
static void
vc_vpinsert(VPageList vpl, VPageDescr vpnew)
{

/* allocate a VPageDescr entry if needed */
if (vpl->vpl_num_pages == 0)
! vpl->vpl_pagedesc = (VPageDescr *) palloc(100 * sizeof(VPageDescr));
! else if (vpl->vpl_num_pages % 100 == 0)
! vpl->vpl_pagedesc = (VPageDescr *) repalloc(vpl->vpl_pagedesc, (vpl->vpl_num_pages + 100) * sizeof(VPageDescr));
vpl->vpl_pagedesc[vpl->vpl_num_pages] = vpnew;
(vpl->vpl_num_pages)++;

--- 2519,2531 ----
static void
vc_vpinsert(VPageList vpl, VPageDescr vpnew)
{
+ #define PG_NPAGEDESC 1000

/* allocate a VPageDescr entry if needed */
if (vpl->vpl_num_pages == 0)
! vpl->vpl_pagedesc = (VPageDescr *) palloc(PG_NPAGEDESC * sizeof(VPageDescr));
! else if (vpl->vpl_num_pages % PG_NPAGEDESC == 0)
! vpl->vpl_pagedesc = (VPageDescr *) repalloc(vpl->vpl_pagedesc, (vpl->vpl_num_pages + PG_NPAGEDESC) * sizeof(VPageDescr));
vpl->vpl_pagedesc[vpl->vpl_num_pages] = vpnew;
(vpl->vpl_num_pages)++;

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Ansley, Michael 1999-08-19 09:40:32 Survey
Previous Message Ansley, Michael 1999-08-19 08:51:51 RE: [HACKERS] Problem with query length