From: | Tatsuo Ishii <t-ishii(at)sra(dot)co(dot)jp> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | t-ishii(at)sra(dot)co(dot)jp, Mike Mascari <mascarim(at)yahoo(dot)com>, Hiroshi Inoue <Inoue(at)tpf(dot)co(dot)jp>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgreSQL(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: [HACKERS] vacuum process size |
Date: | 1999-08-25 13:50:39 |
Message-ID: | 199908251350.WAA00623@ext16.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:
> > I have tested your idea and found even more improved memory usage
> > (86MB vs. 43MB). Standard vacuum consumes as much as 478MB memory with
> > deleting 5000000 tuples that would not be acceptable for most
> > configurations. I think we should fix this as soon as possible. If
> > there's no objection, I will commit included patches to the stable
> > tree (seems Tom has more aggressive idea, so I'll leave the current
> > tree as it is).
>
> No, please make the change in current as well. I was thinking about
> tweaking aset.c to be smarter about releasing large chunks, but in any
> case having the doubling behavior at the request point will be a big
> improvement.
>
> I do not like your patch as given, however. By using a static variable
> you are assuming that there is only one active VPageList at a time.
> It looks to me like there are at least two --- and there is no reason
> to think they'd be the same size.
>
> You need to add a num_pages field to the VPageList struct, not use
> a static.
Good point. I have committed new patches that do not use static
variables anymore to both REL6_5_PATCHES and current tree.
Modified files: backend/commands/vacuum.c and
include/commands/vacuum.h.
---
Tatsuo Ishii
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Ansley, Michael | 1999-08-25 13:56:30 | RE: [HACKERS] vacuum process size |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 1999-08-25 13:46:10 | Re: [HACKERS] vacuum process size |