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

Re: Resumable vacuum proposal and design overview

From: Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: Galy Lee <lee(dot)galy(at)oss(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp>, Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, "Jim C(dot) Nasby" <jim(at)nasby(dot)net>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Resumable vacuum proposal and design overview
Date: 2007-02-28 09:38:57
Message-ID: 45E54DB1.8010100@enterprisedb.com (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers
Tom Lane wrote:
> Galy Lee <lee(dot)galy(at)oss(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp> writes:
>> If we can stop at any point, we can make maintenance memory large
>> sufficient to contain all of the dead tuples, then we only need to
>> clean index for once. No matter how many times vacuum stops,
>> indexes are cleaned for once.
> 
> I beg your pardon?  You're the one who's been harping on the
> table-so-large-it-takes-days-to-vacuum scenario.  How you figure that
> you can store all the dead TIDs in working memory?

This reminds me of an idea I had while looking at the bitmap index 
patch: We could store the dead TIDs more efficiently in a bitmap, 
allowing tables to be vacuumed in lesser cycles.

Of course, that's orthogonal to the above discussion.

-- 
   Heikki Linnakangas
   EnterpriseDB   http://www.enterprisedb.com

In response to

Responses

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Heikki LinnakangasDate: 2007-02-28 09:51:46
Subject: Re: Dead Space Map version 2
Previous:From: Tom LaneDate: 2007-02-28 08:49:55
Subject: Re: Resumable vacuum proposal and design overview

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