From: | Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnaka(at)iki(dot)fi> |
Cc: | Andrey Borodin <x4mmm(at)yandex-team(dot)ru>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Questions/Observations related to Gist vacuum |
Date: | 2019-10-17 03:45:13 |
Message-ID: | CAA4eK1KU=DiPT0p5he2Lrq=_ndMgwEerc_CY3ybo2ibMS+CQhg@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Wed, Oct 16, 2019 at 7:21 PM Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnaka(at)iki(dot)fi> wrote:
>
> On 16 October 2019 12:57:03 CEST, Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> >On Tue, Oct 15, 2019 at 7:13 PM Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnaka(at)iki(dot)fi>
> >wrote:
> >> All things
> >> considered, I'm not sure which is better.
> >
> >Yeah, this is a tough call to make, but if we can allow it to delete
> >the pages in bulkdelete conditionally for parallel vacuum workers,
> >then it would be better.
>
> Yeah, if it's needed for parallel vacuum, maybe that tips the scale.
>
makes sense. I think we can write a patch for it and prepare the
parallel vacuum patch on top of it. Once the parallel vacuum is in a
committable shape, we can commit the gist-index related patch first
followed by parallel vacuum patch.
> Hopefully, multi-pass vacuums are rare in practice. And we should lift the current 1 GB limit on the dead TID array, replacing it with something more compact and expandable, to make multi-pass vacuums even more rare. So I don't think we need to jump through many hoops to optimize the multi-pass case.
>
Yeah, that will be a good improvement.
--
With Regards,
Amit Kapila.
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | vignesh C | 2019-10-17 04:21:06 | Re: Proposal: Make use of C99 designated initialisers for nulls/values arrays |
Previous Message | Kyotaro Horiguchi | 2019-10-17 03:39:33 | Re: configure fails for perl check on CentOS8 |