Re: visibilitymap_count() at the end of vacuum

From: Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>
To: Pavan Deolasee <pavan(dot)deolasee(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: visibilitymap_count() at the end of vacuum
Date: 2012-12-03 18:20:20
Message-ID: 20121203182020.GA16057@awork2.anarazel.de
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Hi,

On 2012-12-03 23:44:36 +0530, Pavan Deolasee wrote:
> I wonder if we really need to make another pass over the entire visibility
> map to count the number of all-visible pages at the end of the vacuum. The
> code that I'm looking at is in src/backend/commands/vacuumlazy.c:
>
> 247 new_rel_allvisible = visibilitymap_count(onerel);
> 248 if (new_rel_allvisible > new_rel_pages)
> 249 new_rel_allvisible = new_rel_pages;
>
> We would have just scanned every bit of the visibility map and can remember
> information about the number of all-visible pages in vacrelstats, just like
> many other statistical information that we track and update the end of the
> vacuum. Sure, there might be some more updates to the VM, especially a few
> bits may get cleared while we are vacuuming the table, but that can happen
> even while we are recounting at the end. AFAICS we can deal with that much
> staleness of the data.

A full-table vacuum can take a *long* (as in days) time, so I think
recounting makes sense. And normally the cost is pretty small, so I
don't see a problem in this.

Why change it?

Andres
--
Andres Freund http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Pavan Deolasee 2012-12-03 18:36:16 Re: visibilitymap_count() at the end of vacuum
Previous Message Pavan Deolasee 2012-12-03 18:14:36 visibilitymap_count() at the end of vacuum