Re: [HACKERS] unusual performance for vac following 8.2 upgrade

From: "Jim C(dot) Nasby" <jim(at)nasby(dot)net>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Kim <kim(at)myemma(dot)com>, pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] unusual performance for vac following 8.2 upgrade
Date: 2007-01-11 21:16:09
Message-ID: 20070111211609.GT36267@nasby.net
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers pgsql-performance

On Thu, Jan 11, 2007 at 04:49:28PM -0300, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> Tom Lane wrote:
>
> > What I think we need to do about this is
> >
> > (1) fix pgstat_vacuum_tabstats to have non-O(N^2) behavior; I'm thinking
> > of using a hash table for the OIDs instead of a linear list. Should be
> > a pretty small change; I'll work on it today.
> >
> > (2) Reconsider whether last-vacuum-time should be sent to the collector
> > unconditionally.
>
> (2) seems a perfectly reasonably answer, but ISTM (1) would be good to
> have anyway (at least in HEAD).

Actually, I'd rather see the impact #1 has before adding #2... If #1
means we're good for even someone with 10M relations, I don't see much
point in #2.

BTW, we're now starting to see more users with a large number of
relations, thanks to partitioning. It would probably be wise to expand
test coverage for that case, especially when it comes to performance.
--
Jim Nasby jim(at)nasby(dot)net
EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com 512.569.9461 (cell)

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2007-01-11 21:16:22 Re: [HACKERS] Checkpoint request failed on version 8.2.1.
Previous Message Tom Lane 2007-01-11 21:11:40 Re: [HACKERS] unusual performance for vac following 8.2 upgrade

Browse pgsql-performance by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Kim 2007-01-11 21:52:23 Re: unusual performance for vac following 8.2 upgrade
Previous Message Carlos H. Reimer 2007-01-11 21:14:51 RES: Improving SQL performance