Re: [HACKERS] Vacuum: allow usage of more than 1GB of work mem

From: Claudio Freire <klaussfreire(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)alvh(dot)no-ip(dot)org>
Cc: Kyotaro HORIGUCHI <horiguchi(dot)kyotaro(at)lab(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp>, Thomas Munro <thomas(dot)munro(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net>, Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com>, Daniel Gustafsson <daniel(at)yesql(dot)se>, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, Masahiko Sawada <sawada(dot)mshk(at)gmail(dot)com>, Anastasia Lubennikova <a(dot)lubennikova(at)postgrespro(dot)ru>, Anastasia Lubennikova <lubennikovaav(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-Dev <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Vacuum: allow usage of more than 1GB of work mem
Date: 2018-03-16 21:46:06
Message-ID: CAGTBQpZyQ8S+sek1+fvcn_ZE_kjAfR+zs-p7AfthzgKZQ-NkfA@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Fri, Feb 9, 2018 at 1:05 PM, Claudio Freire <klaussfreire(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> Turns out that it was a tad oversized. 300k tuples seems enough.
>
> Attached is a new patch version that:
>
> - Uses an unlogged table to make the large mwm test faster
> - Uses a wait_barrier helper that waits for concurrent transactions
> to finish before vacuuming tables, to make sure deleted tuples
> actually are vacuumable
> - Tweaks the size of the large mwm test to be as small as possible
> - Optimizes the delete to avoid expensive operations yet attain
> the same end result

Attached rebased versions of the patches (they weren't applying to
current master)

Attachment Content-Type Size
0001-Vacuum-allow-using-more-than-1GB-work-mem-v19.patch text/x-patch 28.5 KB
0003-Vacuum-free-dead-tuples-array-as-early-as-possible-v10.patch text/x-patch 2.7 KB

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Alvaro Herrera 2018-03-16 21:46:17 Re: ON CONFLICT DO UPDATE for partitioned tables
Previous Message Tom Lane 2018-03-16 21:34:06 Re: CURRENT OF causes an error when IndexOnlyScan is used