Re: [PROPOSAL] VACUUM Progress Checker.

From: Amit Langote <amitlangote09(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>
Cc: "Thakur, Sameer" <Sameer(dot)Thakur(at)nttdata(dot)com>, Jim Nasby <Jim(dot)Nasby(at)bluetreble(dot)com>, Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL mailing lists <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: [PROPOSAL] VACUUM Progress Checker.
Date: 2015-07-22 11:58:21
Message-ID: CA+HiwqFuvJEA7uE8sz2OgCzysqJLTkmJFVR3RW9o+HWJG8UBXA@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Wed, Jul 22, 2015 at 8:19 PM, Alvaro Herrera
<alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> wrote:
>
> Not sure what Jim meant. Maybe he meant to be aware of when spilling to
> disk happens? Obviously, things become slower, so maybe you need to
> consider it for progress reporting purposes.
>

Perhaps the m_w_m determines how many dead tuples lazy_scan_heap() can
keep track of before doing a lazy_vacuum_indexes() +
lazy_vacuum_heap() round. Smaller the m_w_m, more the number of index
scans, slower the progress?

Thanks,
Amit

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Robert Haas 2015-07-22 12:00:23 Re: [PROPOSAL] VACUUM Progress Checker.
Previous Message Alvaro Herrera 2015-07-22 11:19:49 Re: [PROPOSAL] VACUUM Progress Checker.