From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Masahiko Sawada <sawada(dot)mshk(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | David Steele <david(at)pgmasters(dot)net>, Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)bowt(dot)ie>, Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com>, Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, "Ideriha, Takeshi" <ideriha(dot)takeshi(at)jp(dot)fujitsu(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Kuntal Ghosh <kuntalghosh(dot)2007(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Subject: | Re: GUC for cleanup indexes threshold. |
Date: | 2017-03-31 14:44:11 |
Message-ID: | CA+Tgmobfu9Q0vBPx+0vBJ4Sodg=Moick66e1BfUH_kCra2SVPg@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Wed, Mar 29, 2017 at 2:23 AM, Masahiko Sawada <sawada(dot)mshk(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> I was thinking that the status of this patch is still "Needs review"
> because I sent latest version patch[1].
I think you're right.
I took a look at this today. I think there is some problem with the
design of this patch. I originally proposed a threshold based on the
percentage of not-all-visible pages on the theory that we'd just skip
looking at the indexes altogether in that case. But that's not what
the patch does: it only avoids the index *cleanup*, not the index
*vacuum*. And the comments in btvacuumcleanup say this:
/*
* If btbulkdelete was called, we need not do anything, just return the
* stats from the latest btbulkdelete call. If it wasn't called, we must
* still do a pass over the index, to recycle any newly-recyclable pages
* and to obtain index statistics.
*
* Since we aren't going to actually delete any leaf items, there's no
* need to go through all the vacuum-cycle-ID pushups.
*/
So, if I'm reading this correctly, the only time this patch saves
substantial work - at least in the case of a btree index - is in the
case where there are no dead tuples at all. But if we only want to
avoid the work in that case, then a threshold based on the percentage
of all-visible pages seems like the wrong thing, because the other
stuff btvacuumcleanup() is doing doesn't have anything to do with the
number of all-visible pages.
I'm not quite sure what the right thing to do is here, but I'm
doubtful that this is it.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | David Steele | 2017-03-31 14:45:36 | Re: Adding support for Default partition in partitioning |
Previous Message | David Steele | 2017-03-31 14:37:25 | Re: BRIN cost estimate |