Re: Automatic free space map filling

Jim C. Nasby <jnasby@pervasive.com>

From: "Jim C. Nasby" <jnasby@pervasive.com>
To: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Cc: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@commandprompt.com>, Peter Eisentraut <peter_e@gmx.net>, pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org
Date: 2006-03-02T06:52:49Z
Lists: pgsql-hackers
On Thu, Mar 02, 2006 at 01:01:21AM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> > Essentially, we would be folding the "find
> > dead tuples and compress page" logic, which is currently in vacuum, back
> > to insert.  IMHO this is unacceptable from a performance PoV.
> 
> That's the other problem: it's not apparent why pushing work from vacuum
> back into foreground processing is a good idea.  Especially not why
> retail vacuuming of individual tuples will be better than wholesale.

The problem is that even with vacuum_cost_delay, vacuum is still very
slow and problematic in situations such as a large tables in a heavy
transaction environment. Anything that could help reduce the need for
'traditional' vacuuming could well be a win.

Even so, I think the most productive path to pursue at this time is a
dead-space-map/known-clean-map. Either one is almost guaranteed to
provide benefits. Once we know what good they do we can move forward
from there with further improvements.
-- 
Jim C. Nasby, Sr. Engineering Consultant      jnasby@pervasive.com
Pervasive Software      http://pervasive.com    work: 512-231-6117
vcard: http://jim.nasby.net/pervasive.vcf       cell: 512-569-9461