| From: | Jim Nasby <Jim(dot)Nasby(at)BlueTreble(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Masahiko Sawada <sawada(dot)mshk(at)gmail(dot)com>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, "Ideriha, Takeshi" <ideriha(dot)takeshi(at)jp(dot)fujitsu(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Kuntal Ghosh <kuntalghosh(dot)2007(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Subject: | Re: GUC for cleanup indexes threshold. |
| Date: | 2017-02-20 02:35:12 |
| Message-ID: | 0bb5c978-2c25-24f0-b3a2-109978c49dd6@BlueTreble.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 2/19/17 7:56 PM, Masahiko Sawada wrote:
> The half-dead pages are never cleaned up if the ratio of pages
> containing garbage is always lower than threshold. Also in gin index
> the pending list is never cleared, which become big problem. I guess
> that we should take action for each type of indexes.
What worries me is that each AM is going to have a different notion of
what needs to happen to support this. That indicates that trying to
handle this at the vacuum level is not a good idea.
I think it would be wiser to add support for skipping scans to the AM
API instead. That also means you don't have to add support for this to
every index type to start with.
--
Jim Nasby, Data Architect, Blue Treble Consulting, Austin TX
Experts in Analytics, Data Architecture and PostgreSQL
Data in Trouble? Get it in Treble! http://BlueTreble.com
855-TREBLE2 (855-873-2532)
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Amit Langote | 2017-02-20 03:07:08 | Re: tab completion for partitioning |
| Previous Message | Amit Langote | 2017-02-20 02:28:31 | Re: Partitioned tables and relfilenode |