On Mon, Jul 24, 2017 at 2:20 PM, Claudio Freire <klaussfre...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 24, 2017 at 2:10 PM, Sokolov Yura
> <funny.fal...@postgrespro.ru> wrote:
>> On 2017-07-24 19:11, Claudio Freire wrote:
>>> I was mostly thinking about something like the attached patch.
>>> Simple, unintrusive, and shouldn't cause any noticeable slowdown.
>> Your change is small, clear, and currently useful for huge tables under
>> high update load (until "allowing vacuum to use more than 1GB memory"
>> is merged).
> In high-bloat conditions, it doesn't take long to accumulate 1GB of
> dead tuples (which is about 178M tuples, btw).
> The index scan takes way longer than the heap scan in that case.
>> But it still delays updating fsm until whole first batch of dead tuples
>> cleared (ie all indices scanned, and all heap pages cleared), and on such
>> huge table it will be hours.
> So, true, it will get delayed considerably. But as you realized,
> there's not much point in trying to vacuum the FSM sooner, since it
> won't be accurate shortly afterwards anyway. Dead line pointers do use
> up a fair bit of space, especially on narrow tables.
> In a particular table I have that exhibits this problem, most of the
> time is spent scanning the index. It performs dozens of index scans
> before it's done, so it would vacuum the FSM quite often enough, even
> if I were to increase the mwm setting n-fold.

I hate to reply to myself, but I wanted to add: in any case, the case
I'm trying to avoid is the case where the FSM *never* gets vacuumed.
That's bad. But it may not be the phenomenon you're experiencing in
your tests.

Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:

Reply via email to