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

Re: Bug #769: Slow vacuuming due to error in optimization

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Stephen Marshall <smarshall(at)wsicorp(dot)com>
Cc: pgsql-bugs(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Bug #769: Slow vacuuming due to error in optimization
Date: 2002-09-16 21:04:44
Message-ID: 2053.1032210284@sss.pgh.pa.us (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-bugs
Stephen Marshall <smarshall(at)wsicorp(dot)com> writes:
> Tom Lane wrote:
>> How large is "large", and what FSM parameters are you using?  Do you
>> know how many pages were getting passed into MultiRecordFreeSpace?

> vacuum_mem is 16384
> max_fsm_relations is 100
> max_fsm_pages is 300000

> pg_largeobject data size =  4211617.693 K
> pg_largeobject file size  =  7932208.000 K
> number of large objects =  870
> number of lo pages        =  2106287
> number of messages      =    469458

> Upon vacuuming, I found 300000 pages were passed to MultiRecordFreeSpace,
> with the minPage specified as 0 and the maxPage as -2.  The pages passed
> exactly equaled the max_fsm_pages parameter.

Yeah; if you look at vacuumlazy.c you'll see it doesn't bother keeping
track of more than max_fsm_pages, since it knows the FSM will not
remember more than that either.

> This vacuum took over 30 minutes, with more than 25 minutes spent in
> MultiRecordFreeSpace.

Yow.  Definitely need to fix that code ...

			regards, tom lane

In response to

pgsql-bugs by date

Next:From: Peter EisentrautDate: 2002-09-16 23:08:04
Subject: Re: Postgres storing time in strange manner
Previous:From: Tom LaneDate: 2002-09-16 18:29:31
Subject: Re: Bug #769: Slow vacuuming due to error in optimization

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