Re: GUC for cleanup indexes threshold.

From: Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Masahiko Sawada <sawada(dot)mshk(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(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: 2017-02-20 09:15:00
Message-ID: CAA4eK1JOK_L1cvDVefw=Wa_oJAxNzR8XrTWRnmxfYKTX0Chieg@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Mon, Feb 20, 2017 at 7:26 AM, Masahiko Sawada <sawada(dot)mshk(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 17, 2017 at 3:41 AM, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>> On Thu, Feb 16, 2017 at 6:17 AM, Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> wrote:
>>> On 15 February 2017 at 08:07, Masahiko Sawada <sawada(dot)mshk(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>>>> It's a bug. Attached latest version patch, which passed make check.
>>>
>>> In its current form, I'm not sure this is a good idea. Problems...
>>>
>>> 1. I'm pretty sure the world doesn't need another VACUUM parameter
>>>
>>> I suggest that we use the existing vacuum scale factor/4 to reflect
>>> that indexes are more sensitive to bloat.
>>
>> I do not think it's a good idea to control multiple behaviors with a
>> single GUC. We don't really know that dividing by 4 will be right for
>> everyone, or even for most people. It's better to have another
>> parameter with a sensible default than to hardcode a ratio that might
>> work out poorly for some people.
>>
>>> 2. The current btree vacuum code requires 2 vacuums to fully reuse
>>> half-dead pages. So skipping an index vacuum might mean that second
>>> index scan never happens at all, which would be bad.
>>
>> Maybe. If there are a tiny number of those half-dead pages in a huge
>> index, it probably doesn't matter. Also, I don't think it would never
>> happen, unless the table just never gets any more updates or deletes -
>> but that case could also happen today. It's just a matter of
>> happening less frequently.
>

Yeah thats right and I am not sure if it is worth to perform a
complete pass to reclaim dead/deleted pages unless we know someway
that there are many such pages. Also, I think we do reclaim the
complete page while allocating a new page in btree.

> The half-dead pages are never cleaned up if the ratio of pages
> containing garbage is always lower than threshold.
>

Which threshold are you referring here?

--
With Regards,
Amit Kapila.
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Beena Emerson 2017-02-20 09:17:32 Re: increasing the default WAL segment size
Previous Message Robert Haas 2017-02-20 09:07:44 Re: Documentation improvements for partitioning