Heikki Linnakangas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I have two runs of DBT-2, one with the patch and one without.

> Patched:

> autovac "public.stock" scans:1 pages:1285990(-0) 
> tuples:25303056(-2671265) CPU 95.22s/38.02u sec elapsed 10351.17 sec

> Unpatched:

> autovac "public.stock" scans:1 pages:1284504(-0) 
> tuples:25001369(-1973760) CPU 86.55s/34.70u sec elapsed 9628.13 sec

So that makes this patch a good idea why?  (Maybe what we need to see
is the impact on the total elapsed time for the DBT-2 test, rather
than just the VACUUM runtime.)

BTW I've got serious reservations about whether this bit is safe:

> +                     /* The table could've grown since vacuum started, and 
> there
> +                      * might already be dead tuples on the new pages. Catch 
> them
> +                      * as well. Also, we want to include any live tuples in 
> the
> +                      * new pages in the statistics.
> +                      */
> +                     nblocks = RelationGetNumberOfBlocks(onerel);

I seem to recall some assumptions somewhere in the system that a vacuum
won't visit newly-added pages.

                        regards, tom lane

---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 4: Have you searched our list archives?


Reply via email to