On 12 November 2013 08:47 Amit Kapila wrote: > On Mon, Nov 11, 2013 at 3:14 PM, Haribabu kommi > <haribabu.ko...@huawei.com> wrote: > > On 08 November 2013 18:35 Amit Kapila wrote: > >> On Fri, Nov 8, 2013 at 10:56 AM, Haribabu kommi > >> <haribabu.ko...@huawei.com> wrote: > >> > On 07 November 2013 09:42 Amit Kapila wrote: > >> > 1. Taking a copy of n_dead_tuples before VACUUM starts and then > >> subtract it once it is done. > >> > This approach doesn't include the tuples which are remains > >> > during > >> the vacuum operation.
Patch is modified as take a copy of n_dead_tuples during vacuum start and use the same while calculating the new dead tuples at end of vacuum. > >> By the way, do you have test case or can you try to write a test > case > >> which can show this problem and then after fix, you can verify if > the > >> problem is resolved. > > > > The simulated index bloat problem can be generated using the attached > script and sql. > > With the fix of setting the dead tuples properly, > > Which fix here you are referring to, is it the one which you have > proposed with your initial mail? > > > the bloat is reduced and by changing the vacuum cost Parameters the > > bloat is avoided. With the simulated bloat test run for 1 hour the bloat occurred as below, Unpatched - 1532MB Patched - 1474MB With this patched approach the bloat is reduced. Regards, Hari babu.
vacuum_fix_v4.patch
Description: vacuum_fix_v4.patch
-- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
