| From: | Alexander Korotkov <a(dot)korotkov(at)postgrespro(dot)ru> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Claudio Freire <klaussfreire(at)gmail(dot)com>, Masahiko Sawada <sawada(dot)mshk(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Block level parallel vacuum WIP |
| Date: | 2016-08-23 12:40:11 |
| Message-ID: | CAPpHfdtwNwbRccuP_hzeKrcHBg_sKkRPCzkq0pgFBi_WyBJ3WA@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, Aug 23, 2016 at 3:32 PM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> Claudio Freire <klaussfreire(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> > Not only that, but from your description (I haven't read the patch,
> > sorry), you'd be scanning the whole index multiple times (one per
> > worker).
>
> What about pointing each worker at a separate index? Obviously the
> degree of concurrency during index cleanup is then limited by the
> number of indexes, but that doesn't seem like a fatal problem.
>
+1
We could eventually need some effective way of parallelizing vacuum of
single index.
But pointing each worker at separate index seems to be fair enough for
majority of cases.
------
Alexander Korotkov
Postgres Professional: http://www.postgrespro.com
The Russian Postgres Company
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Craig Ringer | 2016-08-23 12:40:17 | Re: Logical decoding of sequence advances, part II |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2016-08-23 12:32:01 | Re: Block level parallel vacuum WIP |