From: | "Jim C(dot) Nasby" <jnasby(at)pervasive(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com>, Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Automatic free space map filling |
Date: | 2006-03-02 06:52:49 |
Message-ID: | 20060302065249.GG82012@pervasive.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Thu, Mar 02, 2006 at 01:01:21AM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> > Essentially, we would be folding the "find
> > dead tuples and compress page" logic, which is currently in vacuum, back
> > to insert. IMHO this is unacceptable from a performance PoV.
>
> That's the other problem: it's not apparent why pushing work from vacuum
> back into foreground processing is a good idea. Especially not why
> retail vacuuming of individual tuples will be better than wholesale.
The problem is that even with vacuum_cost_delay, vacuum is still very
slow and problematic in situations such as a large tables in a heavy
transaction environment. Anything that could help reduce the need for
'traditional' vacuuming could well be a win.
Even so, I think the most productive path to pursue at this time is a
dead-space-map/known-clean-map. Either one is almost guaranteed to
provide benefits. Once we know what good they do we can move forward
from there with further improvements.
--
Jim C. Nasby, Sr. Engineering Consultant jnasby(at)pervasive(dot)com
Pervasive Software http://pervasive.com work: 512-231-6117
vcard: http://jim.nasby.net/pervasive.vcf cell: 512-569-9461
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tino Wildenhain | 2006-03-02 07:05:11 | Re: [SQL] Interval subtracting |
Previous Message | Hannu Krosing | 2006-03-02 06:45:52 | Re: [SQL] Interval subtracting |