Re: Vacuum: allow usage of more than 1GB of work mem
Simon Riggs <simon@2ndquadrant.com>
From: Simon Riggs <simon@2ndquadrant.com>
To: Claudio Freire <klaussfreire@gmail.com>
Cc: Simon Riggs <simon@2ndquadrant.com>,
PostgreSQL-Dev <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>
Date: 2016-09-05T20:36:16Z
Lists: pgsql-hackers
On 5 September 2016 at 15:50, Claudio Freire <klaussfreire@gmail.com> wrote: > On Sun, Sep 4, 2016 at 3:46 AM, Simon Riggs <simon@2ndquadrant.com> wrote: >> On 3 September 2016 at 04:25, Claudio Freire <klaussfreire@gmail.com> wrote: >>> The patch also makes vacuum free the dead_tuples before starting >>> truncation. It didn't seem necessary to hold onto it beyond that >>> point, and it might help give the OS more cache, especially if work >>> mem is configured very high to avoid multiple index scans. >> >> How long does that part ever take? Is there any substantial gain from this? >> >> Lets discuss that as a potential second patch. > > In the test case I mentioned, it takes longer than the vacuum part itself. Please provide a test case and timings so we can see what's happening. -- Simon Riggs http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
Commits
-
Prefetch blocks during lazy vacuum's truncation scan
- 7e26e02eec90 10.0 landed
-
Explain unaccounted for space in pgstattuple.
- 71f996d22125 10.0 cited