| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tatsuo Ishii <ishii(at)sraoss(dot)co(dot)jp> |
| Cc: | markir(at)paradise(dot)net(dot)nz, alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com, peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org, pgsql-patches(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: [PATCHES] pg_freespacemap question |
| Date: | 2006-03-13 03:15:07 |
| Message-ID: | 20130.1142219707@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers pgsql-patches |
Tatsuo Ishii <ishii(at)sraoss(dot)co(dot)jp> writes:
> That sounds strange to me. Each record of accounts tables is actually
> exactly same, i.e fixed size. So it should be possible that UPDATE
> reuses any free spaces made by previous UPDATE. If FSM neglects those
> free spaces "because they are uselessly small", then the unrecycled
> pages are getting grow even if they are regulary VACUUMed, no?
The point here is that if tuples require 50 bytes, and there are 20
bytes free on a page, pgstattuple counts 20 free bytes while FSM
ignores the page. Recording that space in the FSM will not improve
matters, it'll just risk pushing out FSM records for pages that do
have useful amounts of free space.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Christopher Kings-Lynne | 2006-03-13 03:29:44 | Re: [PATCHES] pg_freespacemap question |
| Previous Message | Qingqing Zhou | 2006-03-13 03:02:34 | Re: About Buffer Flushing Function |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Christopher Kings-Lynne | 2006-03-13 03:29:44 | Re: [PATCHES] pg_freespacemap question |
| Previous Message | Tatsuo Ishii | 2006-03-13 02:56:37 | Re: [PATCHES] pg_freespacemap question |