Re: Vacuum: allow usage of more than 1GB of work mem
Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>
From: Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>
To: Simon Riggs <simon@2ndquadrant.com>
Cc: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>, Claudio Freire <klaussfreire@gmail.com>, Jim Nasby <Jim.Nasby@bluetreble.com>,
PostgreSQL-Dev <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>
Date: 2016-09-06T18:55:31Z
Lists: pgsql-hackers
On Tue, Sep 6, 2016 at 2:51 PM, Simon Riggs <simon@2ndquadrant.com> wrote: > On 6 September 2016 at 19:23, Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> wrote: >> On Tue, Sep 6, 2016 at 2:16 PM, Simon Riggs <simon@2ndquadrant.com> wrote: >>> What occurs to me is that we can exactly predict how many tuples we >>> are going to get when we autovacuum, since we measure that and we know >>> what the number is when we trigger it. >>> >>> So there doesn't need to be any guessing going on at all, nor do we >>> need it to be flexible. >> >> No, that's not really true. A lot can change between the time it's >> triggered and the time it happens, or even while it's happening. >> Somebody can run a gigantic bulk delete just after we start the >> VACUUM. > > Which wouldn't be removed by the VACUUM, so can be ignored. OK, true. But I still think it's very unlikely that we can calculate an exact count of how many dead tuples we might run into. I think we shouldn't rely on the stats collector to be perfectly correct anyway - for one thing, you can turn it off - and instead cope with the uncertainty. -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
Commits
-
Prefetch blocks during lazy vacuum's truncation scan
- 7e26e02eec90 10.0 landed
-
Explain unaccounted for space in pgstattuple.
- 71f996d22125 10.0 cited