Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: [HACKERS] Autovacuum loose ends

From: Mark Wong <markw(at)osdl(dot)org>
To: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)alvh(dot)no-ip(dot)org>
Cc: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>,"Matthew T(dot) O'Connor" <matthew(at)zeut(dot)net>,pgsql-patches(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Autovacuum loose ends
Date: 2005-08-12 22:49:57
Message-ID: 200508122249.j7CMnRjA017024@smtp.osdl.org (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackerspgsql-patches
On Fri, 12 Aug 2005 18:42:09 -0400
Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)alvh(dot)no-ip(dot)org> wrote:

> On Fri, Aug 12, 2005 at 03:16:04PM -0700, Mark Wong wrote:
> > On Fri, 12 Aug 2005 17:49:41 -0400
> > Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)alvh(dot)no-ip(dot)org> wrote:
> > 
> > > Notice how the subindexes are wrong ... I think it should be 1:3 for
> > > i_orders, no?  Apparently indexes_scan.data has the same problem.
> > 
> > Whoops!  I think I fixed it for real now and the charts should be
> > updated now.  It was broken slightly more previously.
> 
> Hmm, did you fix the 42 case only?  The other one is broken too ...

The other dev4-015 cases should be fixed too.
 
> Also, it seems the "tran_lock.out" file captured wrong input -- I think
> you mean "WHERE transactionid IS NULL" in the query instead of "WHERE
> transaction IS NULL".

Hmm, ok I can try that in a future test run.  I'm not very familiar with
this table, what's the difference between transaction and transactionid?

> I wonder what the big down-spikes (?) at minutes ~45 and ~85 correspond
> to.  Are those checkpoints?  The IO vmstat chart would indicate that, I
> think.

That's correct, those should be checkpoints. 
 
> Anyway, it's interesting to see the performance go up with autovacuum
> on.  I certainly didn't expect that in this kind of test.

I think in Mary's case it was hurting, but she's running the workload
dramatically different.  I think she was planning to revisit that after
we sort out what's going on with the grouped WAL writes.

Mark

In response to

Responses

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Alvaro HerreraDate: 2005-08-12 22:57:34
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Autovacuum loose ends
Previous:From: Hannu KrosingDate: 2005-08-12 22:43:59
Subject: Re: PATCH to allow concurrent VACUUMs to not lock each

pgsql-patches by date

Next:From: Alvaro HerreraDate: 2005-08-12 22:57:34
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Autovacuum loose ends
Previous:From: Andreas PflugDate: 2005-08-12 22:45:03
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] For review: Server instrumentation patch

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2014 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group