| From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)alvh(dot)no-ip(dot)org>, Michael Renner <michael(dot)renner(at)amd(dot)co(dot)at>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Unexpected page allocation behavior on insert-only tables |
| Date: | 2010-05-31 03:44:02 |
| Message-ID: | AANLkTill9sP47NQyVuuEz4UICUcfY1aQJrDUXPVmoA1t@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Sun, May 30, 2010 at 10:42 PM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> pretty clear what is going on. See the logic in
> RelationGetBufferForTuple, and note that at no time do we have any FSM
> data for the bid table:
Is this because, in the absence of updates or deletes, we never vacuum it?
> 4. Now, all the backends again decide to try to insert into the last
> available block. So everybody jams into the partly-filled block 10,
> until it gets filled.
Would it be (a) feasible and (b) useful to inject some entropy into this step?
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise Postgres Company
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Takahiro Itagaki | 2010-05-31 03:46:40 | Re: Unexpected page allocation behavior on insert-only tables |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2010-05-31 02:42:25 | Re: Unexpected page allocation behavior on insert-only tables |