Re: Block level parallel vacuum WIP

From: Claudio Freire <klaussfreire(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Masahiko Sawada <sawada(dot)mshk(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com>, Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Pavan Deolasee <pavan(dot)deolasee(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Block level parallel vacuum WIP
Date: 2017-01-10 16:23:10
Message-ID: CAGTBQpZt9AWDwhDunLkkCG_WTNxYmv-007ePUAhn7+piCDYdYA@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Tue, Jan 10, 2017 at 6:42 AM, Masahiko Sawada <sawada(dot)mshk(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>> Does this work negate the other work to allow VACUUM to use >
>> 1GB memory?
>
> Partly yes. Because memory space for dead TIDs needs to be allocated
> in DSM before vacuum worker launches, parallel lazy vacuum cannot use
> such a variable amount of memory as that work does. But in
> non-parallel lazy vacuum, that work would be effective. We might be
> able to do similar thing using DSA but I'm not sure that is better.

I think it would work well with DSA as well.

Just instead of having a single segment list, you'd have one per worker.

Since workers work on disjoint tid sets, that shouldn't pose a problem.

The segment list can be joined together later rather efficiently
(simple logical joining of the segment pointer arrays) for the index
scan phases.

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Robert Haas 2017-01-10 16:26:36 Re: [HACKERS] Questionable tag usage
Previous Message Claudio Freire 2017-01-10 16:19:04 Re: Block level parallel vacuum WIP