Re: Vacuum: allow usage of more than 1GB of work mem
Claudio Freire <klaussfreire@gmail.com>
From: Claudio Freire <klaussfreire@gmail.com>
To: Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>
Cc: Pavan Deolasee <pavan.deolasee@gmail.com>,
Masahiko Sawada <sawada.mshk@gmail.com>, Greg Stark <stark@mit.edu>, Simon Riggs <simon@2ndquadrant.com>,
Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>, Jim Nasby <Jim.Nasby@bluetreble.com>,
PostgreSQL-Dev <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>
Date: 2016-09-14T16:42:38Z
Lists: pgsql-hackers
On Wed, Sep 14, 2016 at 12:17 PM, Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> wrote: > For instance, one idea to grow memory usage incrementally would be to > store dead tuple information separately for each 1GB segment of the > relation. So we have an array of dead-tuple-representation objects, > one for every 1GB of the relation. If there are no dead tuples in a > given 1GB segment, then this pointer can just be NULL. Otherwise, it > can point to either the bitmap representation (which will take ~4.5MB) > or it can point to an array of TIDs (which will take 6 bytes/TID). > That could handle an awfully wide variety of usage patterns > efficiently; it's basically never worse than what we're doing today, > and when the dead tuple density is high for any portion of the > relation it's a lot better. If you compress the list into a bitmap a posteriori, you know the number of tuples per page, so you could encode the bitmap even more efficiently. It's not a bad idea, one that can be slapped on top of the multiarray patch - when closing a segment, it can be decided whether to turn it into a bitmap or not.
Commits
-
Prefetch blocks during lazy vacuum's truncation scan
- 7e26e02eec90 10.0 landed
-
Explain unaccounted for space in pgstattuple.
- 71f996d22125 10.0 cited