| 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 | Resend email |
| 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 |
| 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 |