| From: | Hannu Krosing <hannu(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com> | 
|---|---|
| To: | Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com> | 
| Cc: | pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> | 
| Subject: | Re: VACUUMs and WAL | 
| Date: | 2008-10-28 09:45:30 | 
| Message-ID: | 1225187130.7721.5.camel@huvostro | 
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email | 
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers | 
On Tue, 2008-10-28 at 08:49 +0000, Simon Riggs wrote:
> Looking at a VACUUM's WAL records makes me think twice about the way we
> issue a VACUUM.
> 
> 1. First we scan the heap, issuing a HEAP2 clean record for every block
> that needs cleaning.
IIRC the first heap pass just collects info and does nothing else. 
Is this just an empty/do-nothing WAL record ?
> 2. Then we scan the index, issuing WAL records as appropriate.
> 
> 3. Then we rescan the heap, issuing a HEAP2 clean record for every
> block.
> 
> I don't see a reason why we would issue 2 WAL records per block for a
> VACUUM, nor why we would prune and remove in two steps, dirtying the
> block each time. 
The first pass should just be collecting info and not dirtying anything.
Could it be side effect of setting some transaction visibility bits on
first visit ? 
In that case It would be good, if we could disable doing that that for
vacuum.
> Seems like we could write approximately half the amount
> of data that we do.
> 
> Surely we can come up with a better plan than that one?
-------------------
Hannu Krosing 
http://www.2ndQuadrant.com
PostgreSQL Scalability Training, Services and Support
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Simon Riggs | 2008-10-28 10:10:45 | Re: VACUUMs and WAL | 
| Previous Message | Simon Riggs | 2008-10-28 08:49:45 | VACUUMs and WAL |