Re: [HACKERS] vacuum process size

From: Bruce Momjian <maillist(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: t-ishii(at)sra(dot)co(dot)jp
Cc: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgreSQL(dot)org
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] vacuum process size
Date: 1999-09-27 18:33:06
Message-ID: 199909271833.OAA11252@candle.pha.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Tom, you already handled this, right?

> >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)++;
>
>
> ************
> Check out "PostgreSQL Wearables" @ http://www.pgsql.com
>
>

--
Bruce Momjian | http://www.op.net/~candle
maillist(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us | (610) 853-3000
+ If your life is a hard drive, | 830 Blythe Avenue
+ Christ can be your backup. | Drexel Hill, Pennsylvania 19026

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Jan Wieck 1999-09-27 18:42:07 RI status report #1
Previous Message Bruce Momjian 1999-09-27 18:32:34 Re: [HACKERS] backend freezeing on win32 fixed (I hope ;-) )